C" ( 









c 
c 
C«^C 



c< < 


z 


cc < 




cc « 


rr 


c:c 




CC 4 




CC « 




cc < 


I 


CC 4 


r c 


c c « 


t c 


cc < 


r < 


* cc; « 


r c 


-cc , 


r^ < 



^sga^ga^s^^ a reasearai 



| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. 
Sheir 



3^2.. 



S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. , 



&IB l S"3FII>!£i 



OF 



$ 



ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 



in 



€$t C&ri^tian 0ej)o£ttotp ; 



A WEEKLY PAPER, 



PRINTED AT WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 



— — Ts&t&ttMteeeeeceisza 



PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY ROBERT PORTER, WILMINGTON,* 
AND JOSEPH RAKESTRAW, PHILADELPHIA. 

1823* 




fr 



^r 






% 



:(3 






AISVmTI S^SSlTiXT 



IT may be proper to inform the Reader, that this interest- 
ing discussion commenced so far back as the earlijpart of 1821* 
with an Essay over the signature of (i PAUL," fin the 
Christian Repository,) charging the Society of Friends 
with holding doctrines and practices inimical to the principles 
of the Gospel, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments, These charges were ably met by another 
writer over the signature of " A3HCUS." Seldom have the 
productions of anonymous writers excited a more lively inter- 
est tJian have these of "Paul" and "Amicus" especially 
among Presbyterians and Friends. 

As the Authors have never been recognized, they only are 
responsible for the sentiments expressed in their Essays. 

THE PUBLISHERS, 



LETTERS, &c 



Saturday , May is, isai. 

LETTER I. 
TO THE SOCIETY 0¥ TV11EXDS. 

A sincere friend of your society, a lover of truth, and a well 
wisher to every individual of mankind desires to address you on 
some most important subjects. As you are a plain people, you 
will permit me to address you in a plain manner, without any 
meretricious ornament, or conformity to the taste of a fantastic 
world. If asked why I address you through this medium ? — 
because I know no other. Your careful aV "ice from the reli- 
gious assemblies of all other denominations, your objection to 
the perusal of their books, your unwillingness to take their 
periodical works, or join their Bible, Missionary and other 
public christian associations, and your habitual reservedness of 
intercourse, render it difficult and almost impossible to commu- 
nicate with you in the usual way ; — and even through the medi- 
um of the press, it will be difficult to attract your notice or en- 
gage your attention. 

Notwithstanding these discouragements, however, it is pro- 
posed to address to your consideration, a series of Letters on 
the several important subjects upon which we differ; letters 
which I hope candor will induce you to read and weigh ; if not, 
I trust they mil not escape the attention of the rest of the com- 
munity. 

And here, I should do injustice both to myself and you, not 
to acknowledge my approbation of your general character. Of 
your morality and amability, your civil integrity, affectionate 
manners, exemplary simplicity, your prudence and economy, 
and I may add your efficient internal discipline, I have the 
highest admiration. In your opposition to war, slavery, and 
religious persecution I can join with all my heart. But in you; 
neglect of religious newspapers, your opposition to Bible and 
Missionary Societies, your rejection of several Ordinances of 



Christ, your unsocial separation from all other denominations ; 
in short, in the characteristic notions and conduct of your socie- 
ty I cannot join ; — for reasons which shall hereafter he assigned. 

Whether any thing of mine shall draw forth an answer, is a 
matter of perfect indifference. Controversy is not wished, but 
is not feared. This only may be said, as I shall attack no one's 
person, arraign ho one's motives, but simply oppose principles 
and doctrines, no one need expect me to notice personal invec- 
tive, hard names, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober ar- 
gument. Epithets, therefore, of " impertinent," " self-conceit- 
ed," " proselytor," " persecutor," or any names of the kind I 
give notice beforehand, will all he thrown away, as " I am arm- 
ed so strong in honesty, they'll pass me like the idle wind which 
I respect not." 

As I know you have the most erroneous notions of our doc- 
trines and principles, it is not impossible I may have imbibed 
erroneous views of yours. As I have no object in view but truth, 
my heart shall be open to conviction, and every error I shall be 
happy to correct. The statement of your doctrines shall be 
given, not from the mouth of your enemies, but as far as possi- 
ble, in your own phrases, taken from your daily conversation, 
and your most admired writers. 

A complete discussion of every topic, with all the arguments 
and objections, in the short compass of a newspaper essay is 
eut of the question. A concise statement of truth and error, 
is all that will be attempted. 

And now, conscious that my motives are pure, my cause just, 
and the objects for which I contend of infinite moment, to this 
and every future essay I should have no objection to subscribe 
my name in full ; but as it would answer no good purpose, and 
might he ascribed by some to ostentation ; and as the truth or 
error of what I write has nothing to do with my personal cha- 
racter, I subscribe my sentiments by the name of an old and 
frequent combatant of yours, the Apostle — -—PAUL. 



LETTER II. 



ON IjVTERNAX light. 



Saturday, May ip, i82s\ 



Though averse to creeds, you have a system of faith and doc- 
trinal bond of union. As a Society you tolerate a greater dif- 
ference of sentiment among yourselves than any other sect ; but 
yet in certain general and distinctive points you all agree, as is 



evident from your conversation, conduct and books. These dis- 
tinctive or characteristic doctrines, I shall call your creed or 
system of faith ; and these are the doctrines, which, from time 
to time, I intend to canvass. 

In all unscriptural systems of religion there is a radical er- 
ror ; some fundamental principle, upon which, as on a corner 
stone, the whole system rests. To loosen this is to sap the 
whole building ; a blow here, is a " blow at the root." That 
doctrine of yours, therefore, which I shall first call in question 
is this ; that " there is a certain internal light, which is the source 
of all divine knowledge, and the onhj sufficient guide and rule of 
conduct ; and that this light is either innate, or given to all." 
That you set up this internal light as a standard superior to the 
sacred scriptures is the general understanding of other denomi- 
nations, and I think, evident from your conversation, preaching, 
and the books you patronize. In a summary of your doctrines 
stated to have been drawn up by one of your " most respectable 
members," contained in the Encyclopedia, and in Buck's The- 
ological Dictionary, (article Quakers) it is stated, " To Christ 
alone we give the title of the word of God, and not to the sa- 
cred scriptures ; although we highly esteem these sacred writings, 
in subordination to the spirit." And in Kersey's Treatise, 
" we do not agree with those professors of Christianity, who say 
the sacred scriptures are the word of God." (p. 20.) Hence, 
in conversation, when particular passages are quoted against 
your doctrines, we hear such language as this, — « We cannot 
help it, but we feel we are right.*' — " The same spirit which 
was given to Paul is given to us, his writings have been cor- 
rupted, and it is safer to trust the spirit than them — when we 
can drink at the fountain, why drink from the muddy stream !" 
— " That was merely Paul's opinion, he was not always inspir- 
ed" — and many other phrases of like import, all calculated to 
reduce the authority of the Bible, and exalt the light within. 

Now, in opposition to this, I maintain that the sacred scrip- 
tures, (in their literal and logical sense) are the supreme and on- 
ly standard of religious truth. 

1 . Because they were written by inspiration of God. If you 
deny their inspiration, what are you better than the Deists, ma- 
ny of whom admit the sacred writers were good men. If you 
admit their inspiration ; in other words, that these " holy men 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," you must sub- 
mit to their decisions, or make yourselves wiser than God! 
From the very circumstance, therefore, that they were dictated 
by infinite wisdom, (which you must admit, or profess deism,) 
Ave infer nothing can be a wiser or holier guide than they ; of 
course there can be no higher standard of right and wrong. 



6 

Too many of your society, I fear, deny the plenary inspira- 
tion of the sacred volume, and are deists in heart ; but I am 
willing to believe the majority agree with Jesse Kersey, that 
they were written i( under the guidance of the word or Spirit of 
God," and therefore are to be held in "high esteem." With 
such only have I controversy. Says the Apostle, 1 Cor. xiv. 
57 : " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, 
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are 
the commandments of the Lord." Gal. i. 9 : " If any man preach 
any other gospel, let him be accursed." 1 Thes. iv. 8 : " He 
that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath given un- 
to us his holy spirit." He, therefore, that for the sake of any 
other standard, rejects what the apostle wrote, rejects " the 
commandments of God," and "despises" his maker. Those 
who in the face of the divine declarations, that " axi* scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration ;" of the divine threatening to " take 
his part from the book of life, who should take from the words 
of this book ;" and of Christ's promise to " guide his apostles 
into all truth, and bind in heaven what they should bind on 
earth" shall presume to reject or alter any part, have surely no 
claim to the title of christian. With such, at present, I have 
nothing to do. 

But whether those who regard the sacred scriptures as inspir- 
ed of God, and yet set up a higher standard of faith and practice, 
are consistent with themselves, or with the sacred scriptures is 
the present question. To the Bible, which you, as well as I, 
profess to reverence, I appeal. If it give countenance to such 
a standard, I submit. If not, if it uniformly sit as judge itself/ 
and forbid all other trusts, condemn all other guides, your lead- 
ing doctrine must be given up. 

2. Our Lord made the sacred scriptures his standard, and why 
should not we make it ours ? " What saith the scriptures ?" was 
a frequent appeal. " It is written," was enough for him. " The 
scriptures cannot be broken," was a fundamental principle. On 
questions of personal guilt or innocence, he sometimes appealed 
to conscience ; but in all disputes concerning doctrine and duty, 
when scripture could be quoted, it was quoted, and deemed deci- 
sive. He appealed to a standard of which all his hearers could 
judge. Had he appealed to his own internal light, who but him- 
self could have ascertained the conformity of his words to truth ? 

3. We are expressly commanded to try the spirits. 1 John iv. 
1 : " Beloroed, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether 
they are of God, for many false prophets are gone abroad into the 
world." It seems in that age, as in every age since, some were 
for following internal impulses as their only rule. Against this 
the apostle guards, and enjoins to try all doctrines and conduct 



by scriptural rules. If they contradicted the apostle's doctrines, 
the spirits were false. How perfectly do you reverse this order, 
and instead of trying the spirits by the scriptures, you try the scrip- 
tures by the spirit ' 

PAUL. 



Saturday, May a6» 1821. 

LETTER III. 

OX INTERNAL LIGHT. 

In my last I considered your doctrine of Internal Light, and 
showed its inconsistency with the inspiration of the Bible, that 
it was contrary to the example of Christ, and the command of 
the apostle John. Let me now offer a few further arguments for 
your consideration. 

4. You expose your people to the delusions of an evil heart. I 
put this simple question, How shall a man know when he has the 
spirit? lean conceive of but two ways, from consciousness alone, 
or a comparison of our feelings with the scriptures. If the lat- 
ter, you make the Bible your standard, contrary to your doc- 
trine : if the former, if you permit a man to judge in himself, 
without reference to scripture, when he has the spirit, you leave 
every man at the mercy of his worst enemy, and under the guid- 
ance of deceitfulness itself. For says the prophet, Jerem. xvii. 
9: " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wick- 
ed, who can know it." And is this the infallible standard by 
which we are to estimate truth ! (You would have every man 
make conscience a higher guide than the word of truth.) You 
make every thing of conscience, set it up as an infallible guide, 
an unerring counsellor. Now, we admit conscience is good, as 
far as it goes, but unless guided by scripture, it will in many- 
points go wrong ; scripture speaks of an " evil conscience,' 5 of 
persons whose " mind and conscience were defiled." The apos- 
tle Paul says he " lived in all good conscience," while in his un- 
regenerate state, and that he verily thought " he ought to do ma- 
ny things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth :" Acts 
xxvi. 9. for which very acts he afterwards condemned himself 
as a blasphemer, persecutor and the chief of sinners : 1 Timo- 
thy i. 13, 15. Have we any hint that the scriptures are so « de- 
ceitful, defiled," deceptive as this standard of yours ! Can you 
wonder then that we prefer trusting, where the Lord and his apos- 
tles trusted, to the " firm word of prophecy," rather than the ig- 
nis fatuus of our own imaginations ? The letter of scripture is- 
plain, the heart is more delusive than $ dream, That a way may 
2 



10 

seem to us right and yet prove wrong is evident from Prov. xvi. 
25 : " There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end 
thereof are the ways of death." How then shall any one know 
whether a way which seems right, is right ! You have no stand- 
ard, we have ; we go to the letter of scripture. He that trusts 
to any light independent of, or contrary to scripture, trusts to 
his own heart, and "he who trusts his own heart is a fool." 
Prov. xxviii. 26. 

5. Scripture proposes itself as our standard, Isaiah viii. 19. 20: 
" And when they shall say unto you seek unto them that have 
familiar spirits, should not a people seek unto their God ? To 
the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to 
this word it is because there is no light in them." Can any di- 
rection be more plain ? The law and the testimony are to be our 
guide, and men professing divine light are to be tried by the plain 
letter of the law. If they contradict the scriptures, there is no 
light in them ; their light is darkness. Thus the apostle com- 
mends the Bereans, because " they searched, (what? internal 
light? no,) the sacred scriptures whether the things which he 
preached, were so," Acts xvii. 11. And the direction of our 
Lord, to the Jews was, not to consult some internal luminary, 
but search the " sacred scriptures." 

Arguments on this head might be multiplied to an indefinite 
extent ; but conciseness is my object. To all this you will object. 

Obj. 1 " The sacred scriptures are never called the ward of God." 
dns. It is of little consequence what they are called, provided 
they represent his mind and will. But that they are called the 
word of God, instead of more, I will rest on two passages to 
prove, 1. Thess. ii. 13: "We thank God, because when ye 
received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it 
not as the word of men, but as the word of God." Here the 
(i word of God" means something which might be heard, and is 
put in opposition to the word of men. The other is still more 
plain, Col. iii. 16: " Let the word of Christ dwell in you rich- 
ly," i. e. on your construction, let the Christ of Christ dwell 
richly in you ! But as I said before, the rejection of the name is 
nothing, did it not lead to the rejection of the thing. 

Obj. 2. " Christ is the light that lighteth every man that com- 
eth into the world." True ; he giveth to each, all the light he 
has ; but where is it said, how much ? and where that he hath 
furnished each with a guide superior to the Bible ? Those re- 
gions where the Bible is not known, are called " the dark places 
of the earth," the " places where no vision is." 

Obj. 3. " The sacred Scriptures have been corrupted by trans- 
mission." Ans. This is a bold assertion, which you are bound 
to prove. But before you undertake the task, remember, 



ii 

1. That in so doing you reflect gu Providence, as if after taking 
pains to give, he would not take care to preserve. He hath said. 
" not a jot or tittle of his law shall fail." Now suppose a word 
or clause in a prophecy he altered, it may falsify the whole. 

2. We have Manuscripts of the Bible, known by the form of 
the letter and manner of writing, to be 14 or 1600 years old, 
which in every material respect tally with our translation. 
Such are the Alexandrine Manuscript in the Bristish Museum, 
the Codex Beza, Cambridge, the Codex Ephraim, Paris, and 
the Vatican at Rome, supposed to have been written before the 
fifth century. 

3. We have versions and translations into the various langua- 
ges of the earth, made soon after the christian era, all of which 
agree with our English version. The Syriac version was made 
(say learned men) at the close of the first, or commencement of 
the second century. Now these are so many unequivocal proofs 
that we have the sacred books as they were first penned. But, 
lest you should say, who knows whether all these agree : I add, 

4. The different versions and manuscripts have been collated 
and compared, and the extent of the " various readings" ascer- 
tained. That the sacred scriptures were corrupted, and that 
different nations had different Bibles was a very popular infidel 
objection urged during the last century. To meet the objection 
and to compose the anxiety of timid christians, learned men 
travelled over Europe and throughout Christendom, comparing 
the various Manuscripts in all their parts. Kennicott collated 
594 Manuscripts. De Rossi, 927 Manuscripts and printed co- 
pies. Dr. Mill labored 30 years, and ascertained 30,000 various 
readings. Wetstein afterwards discovered more than a million f 
But to what did they amount ? to nothing ! The whole resulted 
in the blessed discovery that the objection was false, that God 
had most remarkably preserved the purity of his word, suffer- 
ing no material change to be effected, and only permitting such 
changes of letters and synonimous particles, and such other un- 
important errors as could not have been prevented without a con- 
stant miracle. 

Since then the sacred scriptures were given by inspiration of 
God — since Christ made them the subject of constant appeal — 
and the apostle brings all spirits to their bar — since they assume 
for themselves the judgment seat — since all other guides are de- 
ceitful and vain — and since we have no reason to doubt we have 
them as at first given by the spirit of God, we conclude, to re- 
ject, reduce, or alter any part, or to make the whole subordi- 
nate to some other standard, is unreasonable, incorrect and dan- 
gerous. 

PAUL. 



12 

Seventh-day, 5 no. 26,1321. 

LETTER I. 
MUCUS TO PAUL. 

I observe in the pipth numher of the " Christian Repository," 
that a correspondent has commenced a series of addresses to the 
Religious Society of Friends. As it is important that an author 
should have a clear understanding of his subject, in order to be 
useful to those whom he wishes to instruct ; and as " Paul" pro- 
fesses to be " a lover of truth," I entertain a hope that I may be 
able to give him some information, that may add materially to 
his stock of knowledge, relating to that people, and perhaps 
save him the trouble of much further inquiry. Notwithstanding 
his first address bears the unkindly face of a challenge, and his 
attitude is that of a man "-strongly armed" for battle, yet it is 
not my intention to enter with him into the field of Religious 
Controversy; for though he may "not fear it," yet I confess I do, 
I have cherished from my youth up, a kindly feeling towards my 
fellow professors of the Christian name, under the various reli- 
gious denominations which distinguish them, and I am afraid of 
controversy, because in its course it often, if not always enlists 
those passions which militate against charity, without which, 
all our professions, and even our other virtues are as the Apos- 
tle Paul affirms, but as " sounding brass or a tinkling cym- 
bal." My object is to state a few facts, and to make such ob- 
servations as naturally arise out of the subject, and then to leave 
the candid and dispassionate enquirer to make such reflections as 
the statements may suggest. 

The first observation in his preliminary essay, that claims 
particular attention is, " our careful absence from the religious as- 
semblies of all other denominations." 

Whether this feature of the Society of Friends is peculiar to 
them, I cannot say. I presume that most christian professors 
attend their own places of worship, and are consequently absent 
from the religious meetings of others. But there are two causes 
which I apprehend operate with us to produce this effect, which 
I will endeavour to explain : And 

First. It is about 170 years since the Society of Friends were 
regularly organized as a religious body. They set out with a 
belief that the injunction of our Lord was binding on them, 
where he said to his disciples, Matthew x. 8 : " freely ye have 
received, freely give." This plain command, standing in con- 
tradiction to no other precept of the same or equal authority, 
they consider as conclusive, and in conformity with it their min- 
isters have ever preached " without money and without price." 
They conceive that a mercenary ministry is unwarranted by th&r 



precepts of the gospel, or the practice of the Apostles ; that it 
is derogatory to the dignity of a christian minister 5 that it les- 
sens the practical influence of the office, hy the imputation of self- 
ish views to those who receive pay for preaching ; that it has 
a tendency to suppress reproof and other plain dealing towards 
those who pay, and begets a desire to please at the expense of 
truth ; and finally, that it is subject to the grossest abuses, as 
the experience of ages abundantly demonstrates. It needs not 
that we be deeply read in ecclesiastical history, to discover 
proofs of this ; almost every page of it gives some incontrovert- 
ible evidence of the fact. Let us cast our eyes on Europe, and 
look back through the gloomy vista of a few centuries. What 
a melancholy picture do the effects, produced by a hireling priest- 
hood, present to the contemplative mind ! and even at this day, 
in some parts of that country, what grievous burdens do this 
class of people bind upon the shoulders of their christian breth- 
ren, which they will not raise a finger to lighten or unloose. 

It is the connexion of pecuniary rewards with the ministry 
that has given rise to the word " Priestcraft," and other oppro- 
brious terms which go to lessen the influence of the professed 
ministers of Christ, terms which would never have been invent- 
ed, had they always imitated the noble example of the Jlpostle 
Paul, who, at Miletus, addressing those among whom he had 
laboured in the Gospel, told them in these memorable words, 
Acts xx. 33: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or ap- 
parel, yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered 
unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have 
shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support 
the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord, how he said 
it is more blessed to give than to receive." 

Under impressions produced by reflections such as these, the 
Society of Friends have believed that they could not consistently 
with their principles, and views of Scripture truth, countenance 
a mercenary ministry, even so far, as to attend the worship of 
those who employed it. It is not from a belief that there are no 
sincere and virtuous men in the ministry amongst them ; it is not 
from any personal dislike to these functionaries ; it is not from 
any disrepect to our fellow prefessors of the Christian name ; it 
is not from any shyness towards those who differ from us in opi- 
nion, that we do not join them in their forms of worship. We 
sincerely love and esteem those under whatever name, whose lives 
correspond with their profession, who evince by their conduct 
that in essential points they are not hearers only, but doers of the 
word. 

Secondly, As God is equally present every where, the Society 
of Friends do not believe that the place of meeting for religious 



14 

purposes, has any peculiar sanctity, because of its use ; they do 
not believe that the mere assembling together, in order to wor- 
ship, creates an obligation on those who meet to make a sign of 
adoration when they enter the house ; and having no scripture 
precept or example for it, they think that uncovering the head in 
a religious assembly (except when the divine being is address- 
ed in vocal prayer,) is rather a sign of superstition than a ne- 
cessary religious act. From the practice of other christian pro- 
fessors, generally, I presume they think differently, but as the 
Society of Friends see no reason to conform to this ceremony, 
and as the non-observance of it, might give offence to their so- 
ber neighbours, they find in this circumstance an additional rea- 
son for absenting themselves from the worship of those who 
practice it. 

Having given some reasons for the absence of Friends from 
the worship of other professors, I shall proceed to notice 
" Paul's" next observation : to wit, " our alleged objection to 
the perusal of books, written by members of other denomina- 
tions." By his publication of this sentiment, I shall endeavor 
to shew that " it is not impossible that " Paul" may have imbib- 
ed erroneous views." 

I was educated within the precincts of the Society to whom 
66 Paul" addresses himself, and have had for many years free 
and extensive communication with the members of it, and I can 
safely say that this is the first time I have ever heard such a sen- 
timent. I have perused their book of discipline, carefully, and 
find no allusion to the subject. The yearly meeting recommends 
to (i heads of families and guardians of minors, to prevent as 
much as possible, their children and others under their care and 
tuition, from reading books tending to prejudice the profession 
of the christian religion, to create the least doubt concerning 
the authenticity of the holy scriptures, or of the saving truths 
declared in them ; and earnestly recommends that its members 
should discourage the reading of Plays, Romances, Novels and 
other pernicious books, as a practice inconsistent with the purity 
of the christian religion ;" but I no where find a word against 
reading books of a religious nature, written by other christian 
professors : on the contrary, the writings of some of these are 
standard books in the private libraries of Friends. And, I give 
it as my deliberate sentiment, that there is no society of people 
who are better versed in the doctrines and principles of other re- 
ligious professors than the members of the Society of Friends 
are. The writer of this article, although his library cannot be 
called a large one, has at least eighty volumes wholly devoted 
to religious subjects, all of which, were written by members of 
other religious professions 5 amongst which, I find on examina- 



15 

tion, the productions of some of the principal professors dis- 
tinguished by different names, who call themselves christians ; 
and I have not the slightest idea that any of my fellow members 
would, if they saw all the books of my library, consider me as 
heterodox, or in the least departing from the views or principles 
of the society to which I belong, on that account. 

Equally foreign from the fact, is the assertion, that we " are 
unwilling to take the periodical works, published by members 
of other denominations." It is true, that we consult our taste 
in the purchase of works of this kind ; we do not subscribe for 
books we cannot relish or approve ; but I cannot suppose reas- 
onable men will censure us much for this, as I apprehend few 
people do otherwise. 

I am perfectly satisfied on one point, that is, were I to take all 
the periodical religious publications in the world, no member of 
our society would blame me for it, nor would I incur, by so do- 
ing, the censure of any of its rules, provided the profits of such 
publication were not appropriated to support some establishment 
inconsistent with our religious principles, and also, provided I 
punctually paid the subscription money for them. 

The other charges of Paul, I propose to notice in future num- 
bers of the Repository. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, June a, i g n , 

LETTER IV. 

ON BAPTISM. 

In the 7th Number of the Repository, a friend of yours, under 
the signature of " Amicus" has undertaken to defend your cause. 
With the amiable and excellent spirit of his remarks I confess 
myself well pleased, and from his introductory address, antici- 
pate candor and charity in all future communications. The top- 
ics he has touched, I will soon discuss ; but, at present, I cannot 
be diverted from what I deem infinitely more important subjects. 
To his essay I have the same objection, as to the society of 
which he is a member— he makes too much of little things, — is 
employed, like the Pharisees of old, "tithing mint, anise and 
cummin," to the neglect of the " weightier matters of the law." 
Whether the ministry be supported by previous or subsequent, 
by express or implied contract, whether men imprison them- 
selves in their own churches, or occasionally visit other sanctua- 
ries to hear the other side of the question, whether they say yea 
or yes, thee or you, wear a black coat or a drab one, a large hat 



16 

or a small one, and worship with the head covered or naked, are 
surely matters of small moment, questions fit lor none but chil- 
dren ! But whether the word of God or the vagaries of a deceit- 
ful heart should be our rule of faith — whether we have a right 
to reject the seals of God's covenant and the badges of Christi- 
anity ; and whether we are to be justified by our own or by 
another's righteousness, are questions of high moment, and of 
eternal consequence — questions which I am willing to discuss. 
Until therefore your friend assail some important doctrine, start 
some important error, much as I respect his talents and his 
heart, 'he will excuse me, if I pursue my originally contemplat- 
ed course. 

I proceed to examine your doctrine on the Sacraments or seal- 
ing Ordinances; and first of Baptism. 

You teach that " water baptism is not an ordinance of Christ — 
that the only baptism required is the baptism of the Spirit." 
That this is your doctrine, is too palpable from the universal 
practice of your society, and from all that Barclay, Clarkson, 
and Kersey have written on the subject, to need any formal 
proof. What expressions are more common in your discourse 
with us, than, " it is right for you if you think it right, but 
then it is an uncommanded useless ceremony ; — if we have the 
thing signified, it is of little consequence whether we have the 
sign; 99 — "all such ceremonies are inconsistent with the spirit- 
uality of the present dispensation;" — "water baptism will nev- 
er save without spiritual baptism" &c. &c. with much more, 
some of which is true, some false, and some nothing to the point. 

That baptism considered in itself will save its subjects, we 
do not pretend ; but as an act of obedience to God, it is an ap- 
pointed means of grace and salvation. That an act may be 
right for us and wrong for you, is readily granted, provided 
that act be of an indifferent, uncommanded kind. Modes of dress, 
forms of speech, kinds of food may be right or wrong, accord- 
ing to our notions : Rom. xiv. But what God by express pre- 
cept has made right, can never be made wrong ; and what he has 
made wrong, no notions of ours can make right. If God has 
not commanded water baptism, the use of it is left at our discre- 
tion; but if he has made it a matter of positive injunction, it is 
no longer a matter of indifference, we neglect it at our peril. 

As to having the thing signified without the sign, it may be, 
but in general, it is not to be expected. And if we have obtained 
the baptism of the spirit, we ought, nevertheless, to submit to 
the baptism of water. Did not Abraham receive circumcisimi 
the seal of the faith which he had before circumcision ? Rom. iv. 
11. Were not the Ethiopian eunuch, the Roman centurion, the 
Apostle Paul and many others baptized with water after they 



17 

possessed an interest in Christ? Acts viii. ix, x. It is not 
enough, therefore, to have the thing signified. It is not enough 
to he in Christ, we ought also to wear the hedge* make & public 
profession of his name, and openly put on Christ. 

As to the " ceremonies being inconsistent with the present dis- 
pensation," — this is begging the question without an offer of an 
argument. Are you wiser than God ? — If he think them consist- 
ent, are you prepared to contradict ? If he, to assist our faith, 
and move our feelings, is pleased to address us through our 
senses, "will you disannul his judgment, and condemn hiify 
that ye may be righteous ?" Job xl. 8. 

We are now prepared for the question, " Is water baptism an 
ordinance of God, at present binding on the church ?" Let it be 
understoood, we are not now inquiring about the mode of bap- 
tism, whether it should be administered by sprinkling, pouring 
or immersion; — or about the subjects of baptism, whether adults 
only, or their children also : But is water baptism, in any shape, 
obligatory on the church? We affirm, and you deny. — Consider, 

1. The express command of Jesus Christ, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. 
" Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; 
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." 
And Mark xvi. 16 : " Whosoever belie veth and is baptised shall 
be saved." — quoted soon after by the Apostle Peter Acts ii. 38, 
" Repent and be baptised every one of you." — Now, when we re- 
collect the ordinary meaning of the word baptism, and especially 
the sense in which our Lord knew the Apostles understood it, 
one would think these texts alone would end the controversy. 
Some other spirit than the spirit of God, some other light than 
the light of scripture and reason must be called in to interpret 
these as not enjoining water baptism. Efforts however have 
been made to set the whole aside. 

First, it has been said, " by baptising nothing more is meant 
than teaching," But it is a sufficient answer to this construction, 
that the word baptise is never used in this sense in the whole of 
•scripture; — and that teaching is also commanded in the next, 
verse. Teaching must accompany baptism ; but baptism is not 
teaching. Again ; it is said baptism means conferring the Hokj 
Spirit* It is granted the word is sometimes used in this sense, 
because purifying the soul by the Holy Spirit was the thing sig- 
nified or represented by the rite of baptism. But this is not its 
signification here. Because it was an apostolic or human act 
which is here commanded. But to baptise with the Holy Ghost 
was no more in the power of the Apostles than to create a world. 
Like John the Baptist they could only "baptise with water.*' 
3 



13 

Besides, as this commission was to last " always ©Yea t» the 
end of the world, it follows, some are commanded to baptise 
now. But what minister, either of your denomination or any 
other can baptise with the Holy Ghost! "Paul may plant, &c." 
The truth is, the application of water is the ordinary, conferring 
the Holy Spirit the extraordinary meaning of the term. And 
thus it was understood by all the Apostles and writers of the 
New Testament, as will be evident if we consider, 

2d. The Jpostles actually applied water to their converts. We 
have seen their Commission, let us now look at their Practice. 
1. Philip, Acts viii. 36, 38, &c. Philip and the eunuch " came 
to a certain water, and he said, see here is water, what doth hin- 
der me to be baptized? and they went down both into the water 9 
and he baptised him." Was not this water baptism? 2. Peter 9 
Actsx. 44— 48: "While Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost foil 
on all those that heard the word : then Peter said, Can any for- 
bid water? and he commanded them to be baptised in the name 
of the Lord." Surely Peter thought the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost was not to set aside the baptism of water. 3. And so did 
Paul, 1 Cor. i. 14. "I thank God that I baptised none of you 
but Crispus and Gains ; and the household of Stephanas," (since 
they made it an occasion of party spirit.) What! thank God 
^that he had communicated the Holy Ghost to only a few ! — Never; 
he must have referred to water baptism. When he afterwards 
says (v. 17.) " Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the 
Gospel," he evidently means nothing more than that preaching 
is more important than baptism, or that preaching was his chief 
business. That Luke also understood baptism as something dif- 
ferent from conferring the Holy Ghost is evident from the whole 
hook of Acts, v. Acts viii. 16. xix. 5, 6. 

And here, for the present, I pause in my argument, and wait 
for your objections. In the mean time, let me beseech you, my 
dear friends weigh well this fact, — that the Commission of our 
Lord, if as you suppose, not express, was calculated to lead to 
water baptism, — that all the apostles and primitive christians, 
so far as we can learn their practice, observed an ordinance 
which you reject; — that the whole christian world for 1600 
years, (till " 170 years ago,") and nine tenths of professing 
christians now, are against you on this subject; — and then an- 
swer if there is not reason to doubt the correctness of your doc- 
trine ; and will it not be a wiser plan to conform to an ordinance 
so easy and useful, iest peradventure, you be found fighting 
against God. 

PAUL. 



19 

Seventh-day, 6th Mo. 46, iS"i, 

LETTER II. 

Having in my former communication endeavoured to illus- 
trate some of the views of the Society of Friends, and to state 
some facts which I deem important to a right understanding of 
their character as a religious body, I shall proceed to notice 
some of the other remarks of " Paul,' 9 contained in his first Es- 
say. The subject of his second address, I must leave for future 
consideration. From some cause I apprehend their character 
and views are misunderstood, what that cause is, I must leave, 
although I cannot believe it proceeds from " habitual reserve." 
It is true, they are not fond of controversy, but I have never ob- 
served that they were averse to explanation. 

The period in which religious controversy was a favourite 
theme, with the generality of christian professors, I believe has 
long passed by. It has been succeeded by a day, either of in- 
difference to the subjects of it, or of calm investigation into the 
all-important concerns of salvation. With men of sound reflec- 
tion, the quiet end patient search after truth must be decidedly 
preferable to the hurried pursuit of it through the stormy and 
turbid region of controversy ; these do not willingly quit the 
serenity of the former, for the unsettled and tempestuous scenes 
of the latter : nor would I desire they should. If the sacred 
scriptures are the only adequate rule of faith and practice, they 
must be best understood in a state of retirement and private 
prayer. If the Holy Spirit, under whose influence they were 
written, is the primary source of instruction, its language will 
be most intelligible when the mind is undisturbed by the clamour 
of debate. With these views I shall endeavour to keep the 
ground of calm discussion, and to give a reason of the hope, 
and faith, and practice, of the people with whom I stand connect- 
ed, in a manner consistent with the dignity and solemnity of a re- 
ligious subject. Having premised these observations, I shall pro- 
ceed to " Paul's" next remarks, " That Friends are unwilling 
to join with others in their Bible and Missionary Societies. 9 * 

In order to understand the real state of the case, it may be 
necessary to mention a few facts. In the first place, a consider- 
able number of their members, both in England and Amerxa, 
have joined the Bible Associations, and rank amongst their ac- 
tive and liberal contributors ; of this, were it necessary, I could 
adduce ample proofs. In the next place, our Yearly Meeting 
have a book department, and officers appointed to distribute i>i- 
bles and other religious publications, as suitable occasions are 
presented : this is not a new establishment, it is of very long 
standing. It makes no noise in the world, was never published. 



hi the newspapers. It is like a gentle stream fed from an un- 
failing spring:, spreading verdure and fertility through all its 
meanders — silent in its course, and scarcely known but where 
its benefits are felt. 

It can scarcely have escaped general observation, that the So- 
ciety of Friends have a very quiet way of doing their business, 
it is in fact the true ground of "Paul's" complaint against 
them in the present instance. In their works of charity, they 
seem studiously to avoid every thing that might attract public 
attention. Many of their members are fed, and clothed, and 
educated, from the funds of the society, whilst their fellow mem- 
bers generally do not know them to be subjects of public bounty :" 
thus the end of charity is answered in a two fold way ; poverty 
is relieved, without being exposed. 

1 lave sometimes when viewing them as with the eye of an in- 
diffc i ent observer, been struck with an idea that they laid par- 
ticular stress upon that injunction of our Lord, "'When thou 
doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand 
dofth, that thine alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth 
iv secret himself shall reward thee openly." Matt. vi. 3. Be 
that as it may, the noiseless tenor of their progress, has often 
been the subject of remark ; but I can hardly suppose that indif- 
ferent judges will consider them much behind their fellow chris- 
tians in "love and good works." 

When I have considered the course pursued by members of 
other religious persuasions in their Bible Societies, Mission- 
ary Associations, Charity Schools, Tract Societies and other 
benevolent institutions, the innumerable pamphlets and news- 
papers they publish, teeming with accounts of their good deeds, 
with lists of their contributor's names, with the amount of their 
df nations, as well as with the surprising effects of their labours, 
it has seemed to me that they must have forgotten the command 
of 01 r Lord, where he says, " When thou doest thine alms do 
not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in their 
synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men:" 
Matt. vi. 2. If they do not forget it, they must suppose the end 
justifies the means, and warrants them to pursue a different course 
fron that pointed out by the highest authority. The man that 
went up into the temple to pray, boasted of his good works be- 
fore those who were assembled with him under the same roof, 
ami stood reproved ; the walls of a single house, form two nar- 
row a boundary for modern christians to tell of theirs in, and by 
a thousand heralds they proclaim them to the wide world. The 
inconsistency of this practice, I think, must arrest the attention 
of every rejecting mind, and is, I have no doubt, one cause why 
some do not join them in their labours. 



21 

6n the subject of Missions, the Society of Friends have never 
been indifferent ; for though they have not joined in the attempt, 
to convert the natives of Birmah or Hindostan, though they have 
sent no Missionary to Java, China, or Japan, yet they have not _ 
been idle at home. They are not opposed to missions. Under 
circumstances which are deemed warrantable or auspicious, they 
are friendly to them. And I think that " Paul's" benevolent 
mind ought not to be pained because they do not join with others 
in the work. So that they do their share of the business, the 
Christian Philanthropist will be satisfied. Friends have on this 
continent, at the present moment, at least four settlements among 
the Indian natives, which have been maintained at a vast expense. 
** Paul," I suppose, did not know of this : indeed how could he 
know it 1 They have had no Missionary Herald to tell the world 
what they have been doing in the case : they have not been ask- 
ing charitable contributions through the towns and villages of 
the United States, for the support of their institutions, or I sup- 
pose their labours in this concern would have been known and 
duly appreciated. The Society has annually, I may say, hund- 
reds of Missionaries as the term is now used, who travel abroad 
in the service of the gospel, by which means the remotest settle- 
ments are visited and their brethren and others are ministered to 
as occasion requires. These, having received mercy at their 
Lord's hand, go forth under the sacred obligation of gratitude to 
Him; they minister freely , in the ability received, both in spirit- 
ual and temporal things ; they invite people, not to come to them, 
but to come unto Christ, that divine fountain of living water, 
which God hath opened in the soul, and to drink of that heaven- 
ly stream " without money and without price." 

Having shown that the Society of friends have not been un- 
mindful of the objects of Bible and Missionary Societies, I in- 
tend in my next essay to give some of the reasons why they have 
not extended their Missionary labours beyond the Cape of Good 
Hope* 

AMICUS. 



Saturday , June 9, 1821-. 

LETTER V. 

ON BIBLE AND MISSIONARY SOCIETIES. 

It would be truly gratifying to my feelings, from time to time, 
like « Amicus," to make prefaces and apologies. But I have 
neither time nor room. If my expressions are sometimes harsh, 
so were those of my apostolic namesake, and I know that my 



22 

spirit is full of love. The Searcher of hearts is my witness how 
pure are my motives in these letters, and how sincere is my de- 
sire for your salvation. 

And does "Amicus" really suppose, he has proved that your 
body, as a body, are the friends of Bible and Missionary Socie- 
ties ! Or does he from his heart, believe that such is the fact ? 
A few (a very few) of your society, in England and America, 
have .stood up as the vindicators and promoters of this cause. I 
admit, and rejoice to admit the interesting fact. But in this 
they were never imitated by the mass of their brethren. So sin- 
gular was the sight of a professed Friend, taking an active pub- 
lic part in these societies, that the names of the individuals have 
been frequently and honorably mentioned in their published Re- 
ports. A Reynolds, a Pole, an Allen, and others, have done 
themselves much honor, and the cause much service ; but what 
have you done as a Society ? I am bold to say, that while a few 
individuals have pursued a different course, as a body you have 
condemned and opposed these institutions, and do, to th*s hour, 
disapprove of them as dangerous schemes. 

In proof, I ask what have you ever done for the Bible Society 
in this State? While hundreds of families down the Peninsula 
are destitute of the Scriptures, and while all other denomina- 
tions, except the Roman Catholic, have joined in circulating the 
word of life, only three or four individuals of your numerous and 
wealthy community have ever contributed to its funds, and not 
one (I believe) has ever honored its meetings with his presence. 
Individuals, when asked the reasons of their refusal, have inti- 
mated their "reluctance to associate with those from whom, in 
other things, they so widely differed," their fear that the Bible 
would " encourage wars," &c. How often do your public speak- 
ers denounce these institutions ? How long is it since Elias Hicks, 
a very popular " public Friend," — of whom, one of your mem- 
bers says, that " he could write as good scripture as the Apostle 
Paul" — how long is it since he, before a large assembly in your 
Borough, made an open attack on all Bible, Missionary, Tract 
and other Associations, to the great grief of other denomina- 
tions, (whom you had been careful to invite,) but manifest grati- 
fication of your own ? 

Shall I add, there is at this time, in Philadelphia, a publica- 
tion, which, according to the statement of the editor, has a sub- 
scription amounting to more than eight hundred, whose avowed 
and steadily pursued object, is to oppose all those benevolent in- 
stitutions which characterize the present age; a publication 
written principally by Friends (as is evident from their doc- 
trines, their " plain language," and other circumstances,), 
which is circulated in Wilmington to considerable extent, and is 



patronized almost entirely by Friends and— infidels ! This pub- 
lication, which, as assiduously as a bee, sucks poison from the 
lips of slander; and with letters from the Indian Red Jacket, 
from General Wilkinson, and other pagans and infidels, pre- 
pares a monthly treat for the enemies of Missions, a leading 
Friend in your town, said, "if he had fifty children, it should 
be the first book he would put into their hands I" In the last 
number of the above work, the first page, William Allen, of 
England, is condemned for taking part in anniversary meetings, 
and the hope is expressed, that the censure " will have its use 
in checking a disposition now too prevalent, to take a part and 
be distinguished in some of the specious institutions, which at 
this time so much abound." And in page 138, Elias Hicks says, 
** It is my unshaken belief, that Bible and Missionary Societies, 
are more pernicious to the real spread of the true gospel of Christ, 
and more oppressive than all the gambling and horse racing in the 
country." And yet the Friends are in favor of Bible societies ! 
With just as much propriety may we say, the Roman Catholics 
are patrons of the same, because Leander Van Ess, and a few 
others, in defiance of the Pope's bulls, in opposition to nine 
tenths of their body, and in direct contradiction to their creed, 
join with Protestants in this glorious work : or that the Jews 
were friendly to Christianity, because the twelve Apostles belong- 
ed to their nation ! No, the Friends, as a body, are the enemies 
and opposers of one of the noblest and grandest institutions ever 
organized. 

Your distribution of Bibles and other publications among your 
members, like your missions among yourselves, is very well ; 
but in this, what do you more than other denominations do for 
themselves ? The Society which does not provide for itself, like 
the man that does not provide for his own house, is " worse than 
an infidel." The Methodists have a large " Book Department," 
and annually circulate through their churches, especially m the 
Western country, great numbers of books and bibles ; but do 
they call this a Bible Society ! by no means ; they never con- 
sider this as superseding the necessity of benevolent exertions 
to benefit strangers and the heathen. The Bible Societies of 
which I spoke, and which I charge you as opposing, are estab- 
lishments for the general and universal good, without reference 
to sect or party. As the object is to circulate the Bible without 
'note or comment, in it all denominations ought to join, and in it 
all other denominations have joined. And I still think it an 
act of " unsocial separation" in you, not to assist in this mighty 
work, and very unkind and unchristian to oppose others because 
they do not work in your way ! 

As to missions — You employ "hundreds of missionaries to 



24 

travel abroad and minister to your brethren and others." The 
methodists employ thousands in the same way ; but can any on# 
suppose these are the "Missionary societies" to which I refer- 
red in my first Letter? If so, they are mistaken. I value as 
highly as any man missions at home ; but I know no reason to 
condemn missions abroad. J& is right to love our friends and 
acquaintances ; but where is the sin of embracing strangers also 
in the arms of our affection ? On the contrary, I think the spirit 
of missions the very spirit which brought a Saviour to our 
world, the very spirit which brought the gospel from Judea to 
the Gentile nations, and the spirit without which the present 
heathen world will never be evangelized. That charity which 
ends at home is not the charity which I admire, — nor the charity 
of those whom you condemn. 

But you have, also, missionaries abroad. No less than " four 
settlements among the natives have been maintained at a vast 
expense." Ah ! here is some mistake ! What ! do you employ 
hirelings/! do you "maintain" ministers and missionaries, 
and that too " at a vast expense." Will it not be very wrong 
in the natives to attend meetings, and thus " countenance" these 
" mercenary" men ? Has that statute of our Lord, ever been re- 
pealed, " Freely ye have received, freely give ?" Cannot your 
missionaries, as well as ours live on air ? — Of this, another time. 
After all, where are these missions ? what have they accom- 
plished ? " Amicus" is right, I never heard of them ; at any 
rate, if I have heard of one in Canada, I never heard of its sue- 
eess ; and I fear the reason was not for want of a " Herald," 
but of something to fill a herald with. I fear, unlike the apostle 
Paul, and other ancient missionaries who « went every where 
preaching the word, in season and out of season," they have 
held too many " silent meetings," and made more use of the 
plough and harrow in christianizing the natives, than of the gos- 
pel of Christ ! I mean not to ridicule, I am truly serious, in sup- 
posing the weapons you use, are not the weapons which tho 
Apostles used ; not those which ever have prospered, or ever will 
prosper in the conversion of the Pagan world. You do not 
preach those plain, pungent, soul-humbling doctrines which the 
Apostles preached, nor use those ordinances which bind the soul 
to duty. However, in what you have done, either in the Bible 
©r Missionary cause, I sincerely rejoice ; and only wish you 
would do more ; and without censure, suffer others to do some- 
thing too. If your labors have been great, and those labors 
blessed, why not glorify God by publishing what he has done ? 
why " hide your light under a bushel," why not " set it on a 
candlestick," that your "light may shine" and all "see your 
good works ?" There is no need of " flowing a trumpet befort 



you," nor of pharisaical boasting, but do something to " pro- 
voke others to love and good works." In some future Letter, I 
will show that collections in churches, and the most earnest 
hefgins; for donations, hath both rational and apostolic sanction. 

PAUL, 



Seventh-day, 6th Mo. 9. 182 r. 

LETTER III. 

From the intentions expressed in my last communication, it 
will now be expected that I should give some reasons why the 
society of Friends do not extend their missionary labours beyond 
the Cape of Good Hope. Our charity, it may be said, should 
'be as extensive as the exigencies that demand it, why then con- 
fine it on this side of the Atlantic ? 

As friends in a collective capacity have never expressed their 
sentiments on this point, I can only give my particular views 
in the case, in doing which I shall undoubtedly express the opini- 
on of a large number of my fellow professors. 

The conversion of the Heathen to pure Christianity is certain- 
ly very desirable : and I believe consistently with the divine 
prediction in the second chapter of Daniel, that the stone which 
was cut out of the mountain without hands, that smote the im- 
age and broke it in pieces, so that it became like the chaff of the 
summer threshing floor, shall itself in due time become a great 
mountain and fill the whole earth. But I also believe that 
ill timed measures, or unqualified instruments instead of hasten- 
ing that great day may tend to retard it. It is not only essen- 
tial to the successful prosecution of a charitable work that the 
object be desirable and even feasible — it is absolutely necessary 
that at least three important circumstances should concur to 
warrant the undertaking. — First, it should be well timed — se- 
condly, the instruments of its accomplishment should be adapted 
to the service — and thirdly, the subject of our bounty should be 
prepared to receive it. If either of these requisites should- be 
wanting the enterprise must fail. 

Now in the first place I think the measures ill timed. The 
blood of the natives of India shed by the hands of professed 
Christians has hardly had time to dry on the soil of their an- 
cestors, now under the control of their rapacious invaders. It 
is computed that more than a million of the natives since the 
British invaded Hindostan have been cruelly sacrificed by the 
professed followers of that meek and lowh Saviour, who is now 
held up to their view as the great object of their faith. The 
4 



Christian character is always most indelibly impressed by the 
weight of example — And what kind of example has been ex- 
hibited to the poor Hindoo since the invasion of his country by 
the professors of Christianity ? Those who are in the least ac- 
quainted with the history of that country need not be told ! Can 
any one believe that with scenes of violence and oppression con- 
stantly before him — with burning towns and hamlets passing in 
review before the eye of memory — his butchered and famished 
relatives and friends pressing with deadly weight on his recol- 
lection — I say can any one believe under these circumstances 
that the natives of India can now be prepared to receive favour- 
able impressions of our holy religion ? . In general they must 
view the name of Christian as the representative of every thing 
that is cruel and savage and unjust — it can hardly have one 
amiable and lovely trait to recommend it to their favourable 
attention — they must as instinctively shudder at the name of 
ii Christ" as the philanthropic missionary does at the name of 
Juggernaut. 

In the next place I think the instruments sent for the conver- 
sion of India are not adapted to the service. The ambassador 
of Christ must necessarily go under the character of a Chris- 
tian, It was men under this character who invaded the Hindoo 
territory, and spread desolation among their towns and hamlets 
—it was men under this character who butchered and starved 
hundreds of thousands of their innocent men, women and chil- 
dren, whose pale phantoms haunted the imagination of the in- 
famous lord Clive to the grave. It is men under this character 
who still hold them under their domination, and who by num- 
berless taxes and impositions of various kinds, wrest from them 
the hard earned produce of their labour ! Can we believe that 
under such circumstances the missionaries sent amongst them 
will make a favourable impression on the minds of the Hindoos ? 
He who can believe they will, must have more sanguine hopes 
than mine. I can hardly believe that the Jlpostle Paul himself, 
could we send him there under such disadvantages would be a 
successful missionary. We can scarcely suppose that our mis- 
sionaries are qualified to work miracles — and without a miracle 
they cannot succeed. 

And lastly, under these circumstances I cannot suppose the 
inhabitants of India are prepared to receive the intended boun- 
ty. An insurmountable weight of prejudice must exist against us 
—a secret detestation of the Christian character, which many 
years will not remove. These views are strengthened by authen- 
tic statements of the situation of religious concerns in Hindos- 
tan and the Birman Empire. At Rangoon where all religious 
Societies arc freely tolerated ; a missionary establishment has 



existed about twelve years, on which large sums have been ex- 
pended — and what have been the fruits ? More, certainly, than 
could reasonably have been expected. In these twelve years 
three natives were baptized — one professed to believe the gospel 
— and another had advanced so far in opposition to his well 
founded prejudices against us as to become an inquirer, but final- 
ly rejected our religion. From Kindostan we have more flat-, 
tering accounts than this, but we must recollect that those Hin- 
doos whose conversion we sometimes hear of, are very little 
removed from a state of slavery or vassalage — they have other 
and more powerful reasons for professing to be Christians than 
the love they bear to Christ. — Were they as free to choose or 
refuse — were they as comfortably circumstanced under their 
rulers as the Birmans — and had no more temporal inducements 
to change their religion than they, I believe the result would be 
no better. They would soon return to the worship of their 
country's idols, less terrible to them than the object of Chris- 
tian adoration. 

We have heard much of the human sacrifices offered to Jug- 
gernaut, and have read some of the pathetic accounts of the 
sickly, miserable self-devoted victims who expire under his car. 
But what are these to the millions, I say millions of human sa- 
crifices which within the last fifty years in India and Europe 
and America have been offered up to the idol of War, or rather 
to the demon of Avarice and Ambition by the professed follow- 
ers of a non-resisting Saviour ! What are these in the scale of 
intellect, or in comparison of numbers, to the innumerable mul- 
titude, whose bones lie bleaching on the plains of Europe and 
America ! Really when I view the Christian character as ex- 
hibited on the page of history, or as practically delineated by 
living example, I think it should make us pause and solemnly 
consider whether we are Christians. And if we can seriously 
believe we are so, whether our hands are sufficiently clean to 
bear to the Hindoo, the Birmau and Chinese the pure Gospel of 
a spotless Saviour ! If they are not, then shall we by attempts 
in this way only rivet their prejudices against Christianity, and 
thus extend the reign of darkness and confusion. We shall 
make converts, not to the religion of the blessed Messiah, but to 
the dark state of the formalist and the hypocrite, — we shall 
*• compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is 
made, we. shall make him two fold more the child of hell than 
he was." 

If the natives of India are capable of reflection, if they have 
minds to discriminate between the nature of the gospel precepts 
and our practice, they must see our inconsistency and abhor it 
— if they arc not capable of reflection they are not fit subjects 



28 

of Christian instruction : in either case they cannot be prepar- 
ed to receive us as the Ministers of our sublime and holy religion. 
If Christians wish to be serviceable to the natives of India, 
let them begin by setting a consistent example ; let them demon- 
strate by works the blessed efficacy of Christian Faith } let them 
return to the inhabitants their civil and political rights ; let them 
abolish their taxes and imposts of all kinds — even the revenues 
raised from the worship of the detestable Juggernaut — instead 
of wresting from them the hard earned fruits of their labour to 
the annual amount of four million, two hundred and ten thou- 
sand pounds sterling, (a sum surpassing the whole revenue of 
the United States) let them demonstrate to the objects of their- 
concern, that they understand and practice upon that benign 
precept of their Lord when he said " It is more blessed to give 
than to receive ;*' let them give such solid proofs of their sinceri- 
ty and benevolence, and then if the Society of Friends do not 
join in the good work of enlightening the benighted inhabitants 
of India it will be time enough to demand of them a reason of 



t&eir inactivity, 



AMICUS. 



Saturday, yum 16, X6«i . - 

LETTER VI. 



As there are many subjects of superior importance, which I 
wish to bring before your minds, and as I have already devoted 
one letter to the subject of Missions and Bible Societies, I shall 
defer a full answer to the late remarks of " Amicus," to some 
future number. It is sufficient, for the present, to observe that 
all his objections, on the score of difficulties, drawn from the un- 
favourabieness of the time, the character of the instruments, and 
the prejudices of the heathen, are fully answered by the actual 
siwcess of missions among the Hottentots, the Ebo Nation, our 
Western Indians, the Greenlanders, the South Sea Islanders, and 
liis own unconvertible Hindoos, — by the unusual willingness of 
many nations to receive the gospel — by the success of twelve 
despised Jews of old, — and by the consideration that our hope of 
success is not in the preacher, but the gospel, not in man, but God, 
"With these remarks, let me now call your attention to another 
ordinance of Christ, which, to your own and the church's in- 
jury, you neglect. 

That the Saviour never intended that the outward ordinance 
of the Lord's Supper should be perpetuated in bis Church* that 



29 

the Evangelists and Apostles, never enjoined this institution, 
and that there is neither profit nor propriety in the ordinance, 
as now observed, your writers and preachers continually teach, 
and your universal practice unequivocally proclaims. 

The objections to this ordinance you have too often heard to 
need a repetition ; the arguments in its favour, I fear, some of 
you have never weighed. Whether you have or not, on such an 
important subject, let me entreat you, weigh them once more. 
How can you answer the argument drawn : — 

First. From the Institution and express command of Jesus 
Christ ? The authority of any one. of the Evangelists, to all 
who believe their inspiration, is a sufficient voucher for any fact. 
But on this subject, three have given their decided testimony, 
see Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. and Luke xxii. 19. The 
passages are too long to quote, but too plain and too well known 
to need quoting. That the Saviour really took material bread and 
material wine, and said " Take, eat, this is my body; — this is my 
blood, drink ye all of it" <w this do inremembrance of me," you can- 
not but admit. Here then we have the institution and a command 
to observe it. If you prefer the term " request" to " command," 
I have no objection ! for a request from a dying Redeemer, to all 
who love him, will equal a command. Object. ' < He only request- 
ed them to do it at that time, and not to continue it after his death." 
-Jlns. Where then is the force of the word " Remembrance V 9 
Does it not refer to things past, and imply that, according to 
the form he now gave, they should keep it with deep interest af- 
ter his death ? At present they could not " remember" his death 
(which was the chief thing represented by the feast) as that 
death had not yet taken place. If you say, " it was a mere 
spiritual remembrance he required," you neglect the force of an- 
other word in this command : Do " this" — what I now do — take 
material bread and wine, and eat and drink corporeally, while 
in spirit you remember the things signified by the broken bread 
and poured out wine. He does not merely say, " Remember 
me ;" but " do this in remembrance of me." If here is not a 
command to observe an outward ordinance, I know not in what 
words it could have been expressed. Again, if the Lord Jesus 
did not intend to continue, and did not attach much importance 
to this ordinance, account, if you can — 

Secondly. For his revelation and repetition of it, some years 
after, to the Apostle Paul. The Apostle declares, Gal. 1. 12 : 
that he received all his doctrines " not from man, but by the 
revelation of Jesus Christ." And in 1 Cor. xi. 23. he says he 
received this very ordinance, in the very words and form given 
in the Evangelists, from the same divine authority. "Fori 
received of the Lord Jesus, that which I delivered unto you, 



&c." Here is sanction upon sanction to authorize our celebra- 
tion, and condemn your neglect of this solemn feast. How do 
you account — 

Thirdly. For its observance by the primitive Church ? We 
have every reason to believe that the first converts to Christiani- 
ty, especially the Gentiles, took their ordinances as well as their 
doctrines immediately from Apostolic lips. Now we find Chris- 
tians every where observing this feast. At Jerusalem we find 
them " breaking bread from house to house." (Acts ii. 46.) lso 
at Troas, (Acts xx. 7.) " On the first day of the week the dis- 
ciples came together to break bread, and Paul preached" — and 
(v. 11.) " broke bread." Can any one suppose that the 
Lord's day would be appointed for any common meal : or that 
the holy Apostle, " ready to depart on the morrow," would 
spend his time in eating and drinking in any other than a sacra- 
mental way ? But in the Epistle to the Corinthians we have de- 
cisive proof. More than twenty years after the death of Christ, 
we find the Corinthians celebrating and the Apostle regulating 
this feast: 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 34. He here says expressly, that he 
had " delivered" it unto them. And in 1 Cor. x. 16. he speaks 
as if it was the common practice of the whole church, " the cup 
which w e bless, the bread which we break, is it not the commu- 
nion of the blood and body of Christ ?" — in contradistinction 
from idolaters, who drank "the cup" and partook of "the 
table of devils." Here then we have the practice of the primi- 
tive Christians and the sanction of the Apostles many years after 
our Saviour's death. Do your teachers better know the will of 
God than the Apostle Paul ? — or have you received some new, 
additional and contradictory revelation ? He " received of the 
Lord Jesus" to "deliver" this ordinance unto us : have you 
" received of the Lord Jesus" to set it aside ? If not, we in* 
treat you, keep this feast : — for 

Fourthly. It must be continued till Christ come again. If Christ 
had not told us it should be perpetual, since his blood was shed 
and his body bruised for us as well as for the primitive church, 
reason would teach the propriety of our using the symbols of his 
death as well as they* But he has not left us in any doubt or 
darkness on the subject. The Apostle hath expressly told us, 
1 Cor. xi. 26. to keep this feast " until he come." I am not ig- 
norant of your interpretations — 6i until he come to destroy Jeru- 
salem — until he come by his Holy Spirit — until he come with full 
illumination and establishment in the faith ;" but to these con- 
structions I never can assent. Not to thefrst, because the de- 
struction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the repeal of cer- 
emonies, all such having been repealed at the death of Christ; — 
net to the second, because he had come in this sense, on the day 



31 

of Pentecost, twenty years before;— nor to the third (which is 
your main defence,) because the phrase is never thus used else- 
where in scripture, and it is a mere gratuitous assertion, to say 
that it is so used here, and because tli apostle Paul was certain- 
ly an established christian, and had full illumination, and yet he 
observed and delivered this ordinance. Besides, suppose Christ 
does come to a christian with as full illumination as he ever came 
to man, or comes to any of you, why should this supersede the 
ordinance. " Our distinct knowledge and ardent love of Christ 
would supersede the necessity of memorials." — And can the 
views of any lovers of Christ be more distinct, their love more 
ardent, than were those of the twelve Apostles, who heard him, 
saw him, handled him for years, and loved him more than life ? 
And yet to these very twelve, he gave these memorials i If need- 
ful and useful to them, are they not needful to you? So long as 
he withholds his visible bodily presence, so long these striking 
emblems of himself will never cease to be of use to his holiest 
followers. The " coming," therefore, of which he speaks, is 
not his coming by his spiiit, but his visible appearance at the last 
day, to call the world to judgment, and take all his chosen to 
himself. The ordinance therefore, was intended to be perpetuah 
or to the end of the world. 

In conclusion, I would draw an argument — 

Fifthly. From the utility of this ordinance. This appears 
from its nature and design. First, it is a sign and seal of the 
divine covenant. " This cup is the New Testament (or cove- 
nant) in my blood;" just as he said of circumcision, (Gen. xvii. 
10, 13 :) " This is my covenant" which ** shall be in your flesh," 
as if he had said, « This is the sign and seal of my covenant." 
The Lord's supper is a seal on the part of God, to fulfil all the 
promises, and on ours to perform all the duties of the covenant 
of which it is a seal. Thus it operates as a powerful stimulus 
to duty toward ourselves, and faith towards God. 

Again, it is useful as an exhibition of the doctrine of atonement, 
(as baptism is of the doctrine of the Trinity.) " So often as ye 
eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's 
death." And I cannot but agree with Doddridge, that, " so 
long as an ordinance which has so plain a reference to the sat- 
isfaction of Christ, and does such honour to this fundamental doc- 
trine of the gospel, is continued in the church, so long it will be 
impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain humble 
christians by any little artifices" or Socinian criticisms. And 
I cannot but think, if you administered and explained this ordi- 
nance to your people, the now almost banished doctrine of the 
cross and of imputed righteousness would soon be honored and 
restored. 



Lastly, this ordinance, as well as baptism, is useful as a badge 
qf Christianity, One object of these ordinances, was to sepa- 
rate Christ's followers from the world, to make them visible, 
and compel them to profess the essential doctrines of his gos- 
pel. And though I have no doubt there are many saints in hea- 
ven and earth who never wore these badges, I have my doubts 
whether such form any part of the visible christian church. If 
the mere acknowledgment of a God, and some vague profession 
of religion constitute a social body a church, why not give this 
title to the Masonic Lodge? (I mean nothing invidious to you, or 
disrespectful to them.) They make a general profession of re- 
ligion, reject atheists and sometimes deists from their institution, 
• — have a strictly moral and even religious code of discipline — 
are bound by the strongest ties to mutual love, — are very charit- 
able to their own, and even other poor — they sometimes pray, 
exhort, and what you do not, they sing ; in short, when they 
have members present, whom the spirit moves, they haye as ma- 
ny religious exercises as yourselves. Why not call them a chris- 
tian church ? Suppose again a set of sober deists should be or- 
ganized and agree to meet on the first day of the week, (not be- 
cause it was holy time, but because it was the custom of the 
country,) should pray and praise, and preach, and perform oth- 
er duties of natural religion — why not call them a christian 
church ? Because, in admitting to membership, they do not 
make it essential to believe or profess a single doctrine peculiar 
to Christianity. Now, what you require your members to pro- 
fess, I do not know ; but this I know, you could not properly 
observe these ordinances without requiring faith in the doctrines v 
of the trinity, the divinity of Christ, and his vicarious atonement 
for the sins of the world — doctrines found in only one religious 
system upon earth. 

PAUL. 

$Fventh-day, 6th Mo. 23, 1E21. 

LETTER IV. 

When I commenced writing for the Repository, I hoped that 
the parties engaged in the present discussion might perhaps give 
such explanations, of their respective views and sentiments, ae 
would promote the harmony of different religious professors, 
that they might by exhibiting sufficient ground for mutual for- 
bearance, increase a spirit of amity and benevolence. " Harsh 
expressions," I have determined to avoid — they can do no good, 
and may do much harm. Innuendo and invective in religious 



discussions, always hurt the cause they are intended to support. 
Truth needs no such weapons. A f spirit full of love," would 
not use them. They excite the passions and disqualify either 
for calm reflection or deep investigation. In my preceding 
Essays, I have endeavoured to sustain the character of a can- 
did and dispassionate writer — with " Paul" I have no quarrel — 
my aim is to elucidate our views. In the pursuit of this object, 
if my observations should sometimes assume the form of a " pre- 
face," at others of an " apology," I cannot see in such a cir- 
cumstance any cause of offence. 

In my last number, I gave some of my reasons for believing 
that the zeal which has been excited on the subject of foreign 
missions, is unseasonable ; as the subject is important, I will 
pursue it a little further, and endeavour to show that it is also 
misdirected. 

When our Lord was about to introduce the Gospel dispensa- 
tion, it pleased Divine wisdom to send a messenger before him. 
" The voice, of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make his paths straight." The doctrine he preach- 
ed to the people, even to those who were to be the instruments of 
spreading the gospel among the heathen, was, " Repent ye for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand." I have thought that this 
circumstance might indicate to all future generations the neces- 
sity of outward and inward purity in those who undertake to 
spread the Messiah's kingdom. Purity of life, and innocence 
of deportment, a practical conformity to the precepts of our 
Lord are the most efficient means of raising the low expectations 
of the visited, and removing the most obstinate prejudices. 
Without these the vallies cannot be exalted, the mountains be 
brought low, the crooked things made straight, or the rough 
places smooth, Luke iii. 5. 

Now let us pause a little and contemplate our actual state- 
Let us see how far we are governed by the laws of that very 
kingdom we are engaged to extend — how far we are willing to 
do justice at home, and to extend this divine government through 
our own land. Here we see One million Jive hundred thousand 
of our fellow creatures unjustly held in a degrading bondage, 
which is entailed on their innocent posterity. Here we see 
those who appear to be anxious to spread the Bible among the 
heathen, ten or fifteen thousand miles from us, pronouncing fine 
and imprisonment on those who have dared to instruct this be- 
nighted branch of the human family in our own land. We are 
manifesting great anxiety for the welfare of immortal souls be- 
yond the Atlantic, but great indifference about those within our 
own shores — Strenuous efforts are making to send help abroad, 
whilst the most important field that can possibly engage our at- 
tention remains a dark howling wilderness at home 



34 

I am not ignorant of the excuses made for these inconsisten- 
cies, nor can I be blind to the real cause of them. I am also 
aware of the difficulties that lie in the way to the emancipation 
ami instruction of the African race in our own country ; yet I 
think they are not greater than those which must he encountered 
in converting the inhabitants of West Africa, Hindostan, the 
Birman Empire, China, the South Sea Islands or Jerusalem, 
and I have no doubt our success would be greater and the ex- 
pense much less at home than abroad. Here is a poor afflicted 
people, borne down with grief — friendless and unpitied. How 
sweet to their ears would be the voice of kindness, how beauti- 
ful the feet of those who should bring to them the glad tidings of 
the gospel. An immortal soul is as valuable in one part of the 
world as in another. With God there is no respect of persons, 
neither should there be with men. I know we cannot force our 
way to the accomplishment of this great domestice object, yet 
the combined influence of all religious societies in the United 
States, would go a great way toward effecting it. Were all the 
zeal, talent, and industry which is exerted in promoting foreign 
missions, bent to this important subject — were all the means of 
missionary heralds, bible societies, and associations of various 
kinds, devoted to this cause, on the ground of religious princi- 
ple, I cannot doubt, that we should soon see measures pursued 
that would convince all, of the policy, expediency and necessity 
of such reformation at home, as would gradually remove from 
our national escutcheon one of the darkest spots that disgrace 
it; as would finally shake this collossal iniquity to the ground, 
and open to the christian patriot a door of hope for the real and 
permanent prosperity of his country. But until such an expe- 
riment is made, until we have fairly proved that this measure is 
impracticable, I cannot see why we should neglect our own busi- 
ness to go and labour in a foreign country. Let us set the can- 
dle on our own candlestick, before we attempt to enlighten oth- 
ers ; let us " preach the plain, pungent, soul humbling doctrines 
of Christ and his apostles" at home, and put our own family in 
order before we spend our strength in attempting to rectify the 
family of a distant neighbour- — let us labour faithfully in the do- 
mestic department, and make our own house clean before we 
busy ourselves to sweep that of another. Thus others " seeing 
our good works," without hearing our trumpet, may have sub- 
stantial and grateful cause to glorify our Father who is in Hea- 
ven. 

I remember to have read many years ago of a missionary who 
was sent into our western country to preach to the Indian na- 
tives ; he was accompanied by a very respectable member of the 
society who sent him. When they arrived at the place where 



the location was to have been made, they opened to the Indians 
their benevolent concern : the natives called a council to consid- 
er the subject, and after long deliberation, they sent a deputation 
to their visitors, to inquire if the white men did not hold their 
black brothers in slavery — the reply being in the affirmative ; 
they told them to go home, set their brothers free, preach to them 
and make them christians first — then come back to the Indians 
ancj they would listen to them. There was so much good sense 
and justice in the Indian proposition, that the person who was 
with the missionary, and who at that time held slaves, immedi- 
ately liberated them all — an example worthy of universal imita- 
tion. 

" Why (said our Lord,) beholdest thou the mote that is in thy 
brother's eye, and considerest not the beam that is thine own 
eye! Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote 
out of thine eye, and behold a beam is in thine own eye ! Thou 
hypocrite ; first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then 
shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye.' 5 
The force of this truly divine admonition is irresistible — how 
far it is applicable to our state, 1 willingly leave the serious rea- 
der to determine. 

AMICUS. 



Seventh-day^ 6th Mo. 23, 1821,. 

LETTER I. 



TO 



As Paul has taken upon himself the task of instructing us in 
the doctrines of the New Testament, and detecting, as he im- 
agines, the errors of our Christian profession, it must surely be 
of importance to us that we should rightly understand him, on 
a subject of such magnitude, especially if his lectures are ex- 
pected to have any influence upon our conduct. For this pur- 
pose, I wish to propound a few questions to this champion of or- 
thodox opinions, which if he will be so obliging as to answer 
effectually, may tend to lighten the burden of his labours, by 
carrying conviction to our understandings. 

And first, we are told that the Bible or the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testament are the word of God, and " the only 
standard of religious truth." Then how comes it to pass that 
every sect into which the Christian world has been divided, 
however various and contradictory their doctrines may be to each 
other, have all proved them true, from this infallible rule, this 
supreme standard of faith ? If these different sects be various 



3D 

and contradictory in their interpretations of the Scriptures, they 
must I presume, he all wrong, or some one only right. For 
Christ is not divided. And which is that sect who have attain- 
ed to the true interpretation ? 

Not that I believe there is any inconsistency in the Bible — 
but the question is, what causes these various and contradicto- 
ry interpretations ? And how is the true knowledge of this 
a supreme standard' 9 to be arrived at — seeing it is construed so 
differently ? Not by the light of man's conscience, for this is the 
creature of habit — it is formed by education, and Friends never 
set it up as their guide in these cases. — Not by " the vagaries 
of a deceitful heart," for these have led the Christian world into 
endless disputes, and even into wars "for Christ's sake." Not by 
any interpretation which the Scriptures give of themselves, for 
this is liable to be misconstrued, as we see from the example of 
all Christendom. 

But are not the seals to be opened ? are not the scales to be 
removed from our eyes before we can attain to a true and saving 
knowledge of the truths, revealed in the Scriptures ? — and if so, 
by what? 

Again, we are told that we ought to be baptized with water, 
because it is commanded by Christ and his Apostles, as a 
standing ordinance in the Church, and that we may be found 
fighting against God, if we do not conform. Now we would 
like to know which is the right way of conforming to this stand- 
ing ordinance ; whether by immersion, or by sprinkling. If 
we are all enjoined to be baptized with water, we ought to know 
how ? All things necessary to be observed by the Jews were 
well defined in their law ; so that no ambiguity was to be found 
in their statutes of standing obligation : — and it would seem to 
me that all essential duties of a Christian are well defined ; hut 
I am not able exactly to understand, how sprinkling a little wat- 
er in the face can be called baptizing. And as we do not see 
any binding obligation either to dip or to sprinkle, until we are 
better informed, which is the right way, and until professors of 
Christianity who deem it essential are agreed about the manner 
of doing it, we shall be content to omit the ceremony altogether, 

John indeed baptized with water unto repentance, but One that 
is mightier than John baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire. 

^ Again, we would like to know what is meant by that article 
in your confession of faith, which says, " to the officers of the 
church the keys of Heaven are committed, by virtue where- 
of, they have power respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut 
that kingdom against the impenitent, by word and censures: 
and to open it unto penitent sinners, &c. as occasion may re- 



37 

quire." Now to which of your officers is this tremenrous pow- 
er intrusted ? if to "Paul," we must be in a deplorable sit- 
uation indeed. For he has fairly ranked us with deists and 
infidels, and aliens from the visible church of Christ. Hence I 
conclude, if he, or such Orthodox Divines, are to hold the key* 
of heaven, we shall knock in vain for admission. 

How can you presume to call the Pope of Rome, " That anti- 
christ, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth him- 
self in the Church against Christ and all that is called God," 
when you assume as your authority to open and shut up Heaven, 
the same text of Matthew, which the Pope claims as the evidence 
©f his power to retain and remit sins, and which constitutes him 
Christ's Vicar and vicegerent upon earth ? — And was not the 
assumed, right in the Pope to exercise this self same power, which 
you give to your officers, the principal cause of the separation 
of Luther from the Romish Church t 

I will now as Paul has done, take the name of an Apostle, 
one whose evangelical purity, was not exceeded by any of the 
followers of Christ. 

JOHN. 



LETTER VII. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



Saturday, June 30, ieai. 



A new defender has appeared. Whether to answer him, or 
jiot, I am really at a loss. Not from terror at his arguments, 
for with truth upon my side, I do not fear ten thousand such ; but 
because I am doubtful whether you will not disown his senti- 
ments and decline his aid. That the writer is a deist is most 
palpable. The substance, and almost the words of his objec- 
tions, may be found in every writer of a certain class, from lord 
Herbert down to Thomas Paine. Yet, as I sincerely believe 
his sentiments, however displeasing to a few, are the sentiments 
of many who are full members in your society ; as I believe 
many of your doctrines lead directly to such sentiments ; and 
as the style and expression give some reason to believe him a 
professed Friend, until he be disowned, in answering him, I 
shall consider myself as answering you. 

In reply to his objection against a certain Confession of 
Faith, I would observe, that with any other Confession of Faith 
than yours, I have nothing to do. And though he should ever} 
week, by omitting words and clauses, metamorphose an inno- 
cent scriptural doctrine into a Popish monster, I shall not thus 



38 

be diverted from my determination to examine >our leading 
doctrines by the light of truth, and, if possible, expose to you 
and to the world, the danger of your system. And I hope that 
in this, I have no other view but the glory of God and the good 
©f mankind. 

Let us now canvass tbe sentiments of your new defender. 

First. He deriies (as usual) that the Scriptures are the word 
of God. " We are told the Bible is the word of God, tben bow, 
&c." This from any but a Friend would be barefaced deism; 
and wby from your lips should it be justified ? If you mean 
merely to say that the Bible is not the Spirit, or Christ, we ad- 
mit it as readily as that it is not Peter or Paul. We do not 
look upon the Bible as a person, or a spirit, but a book ! and if 
this is all you mean to say, you are welcome to the wonderful 
discovery ! But if you mean to say, that the Bible is not a plain 
literal declaration of the mind and will of God, entitled to as 
much reverence and as implicit credit as though the whole had 
been or were now delivered by an audible voice from the Mmigh- 
ty himself; I appeal to the whole christian world, if you are not 
deists. If you admit that it is his declaration of truth, his speech, 
his epistle, his message to us, — to refuse to call it his word, 
what is it but a quibble ! A good part of the Books of Moses was 
spoken by the Lord from Mount Sinai and other places; the 
greater part of the gospels consists of our Lord's discourses ; and 
the inspired Apostle says, (l Cor. xiv. 37.) "the things 
which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord ;" 
and yet it is incorrect to call these very scriptures the word of 
God] Because this phrase is once or twice used figuratively to 
signify Christ, therefore it can never be used in a literal sense ! 
The names " Son of man," "Prophet," " Priest," " King," are 
all applied to Christ, but do they therefore always signify the 
Saviour? I am confident, my dear friends whether you intend it 
or not, there is much deism conveyed to your hearers under this 
doctrine. By the rejection of an innocent, an expressive, and a 
scriptural terjy, you do lessen the reverence of your children 
and others for the Book of God. And if you wished to propa- 
gate deistical principles, you could not take a more effectual 
way. Open deism, like a naked Satan, frightens people; but 
veiled in a specious garb, like Satan robed as an angel of light, 
it seduces thousands. 

Secondly. He denies that the Bible is " the only standard of 
religious truth." Why? because different christian sects pro- 
fessing to follow it, derive from it, and defend by it, (i various 
contradictory doctrines." Now I appeal to any one acquainted 
with infidel works, if this is not one of the first objections which 
a deist brings to invalidate the inspiration of the scriptures. 



$9 

•*' The scriptures arc obscure and incomprehensible," " no two 
sects agree as to their doctrines," " we need a new revelation to 
tell us what the old one means," are favourite expressions. Ob- 
jections of this kind, however, arise from a shameful ignorance 
of the scriptures, and of the doctrines of different sects. Let in- 
fidels say what they will, nine-tenths of the churches in Christen- 
dom, hold doctrines essentially the same. By consulting the 
Confessions of Faith of the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Episcopalians, and other leading denominations, you will find, 
in the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the ple- 
nary Inspiration of the scriptures, the vicarious Atonement, 
man's Inability to save himself, Justification only through the 
merits of Christ, the observance of the ordinances of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, the necessity of repentance, faith and 
holiness ; in short, in every important doctrine peculiar to Chris- 
tianity, they all essentially agree. No sect which rejects any 
one of these doctrines is generally acknowledged as a christian 
church. No sect which rejects one of them (unless we except 
the "necessity of repentance," which is not peculiar to chris-- 
tianity) but rejects the whole. And no sect rejects one of these, 
hut avowedly rejects the scriptures as a standard. The Soci- 
nians follow, what they call, Reason; Swedenborgians, the 
dreams of their leader ; the Jews and Papists, spurious tradi- 
tions; the Shakers, Ann Lee; and the Friends, who are un- 
sound on all the above points, (except the last, and here they 
fail in part) professedly make the scriptures "subordinate" to 
something else. And I cannot but believe, the reason why 
those who reject the above doctrines also reject the scripture as 
a standard, is, that these doctrines are written in that holy 
book as with a sunbeam, so that " he who runs may read." But 
all who profess to make the scriptures their sole standard, harmo- 
nize on all these points. The objection of * John,' therefore, has 
no foundation : on minor points, it is to be lamented, christians 
too widely and too warmly differ. But predestination, election, 
perseverance, modes of Baptism, forms of government, forms of 
worship, however important, are not, in my opinion, essential 
doctrines. Only agree with us in those doctrines and ordinan- 
ces in which all christians agree, and you shall never be troubled 
by me about minor differences, but be regarded and loved as 
christian brethren. 

Thirdly. Another infidel doctrine is this, that, " Conscience is 
the creature of habit, formed by education." This is almost Athe- 
ism ! Only add f< all difference between right and ivrong is fac- 
titious, the effect of education," and you ar on a par with 
Hobbes and Hume. Sober deists acknowledge conscience to be 
universal and independent of circumstances . I have much to say 



40 

upon this subject, but at present, for want of room, can add no- 
more. 

Fourthly. Another proof of your friend's infidelity is, the 
mode in which he sets aside Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I 
have no doubt many of your society conscientiously neglect these 
ordinances from a sincere belief that they are not commanded. 
But this writer does not deny they are commanded, but rejects 
them simply because christians differ about the mode and cir- 
cumstances. An humble christian would have first examined 
whether they were enjoined of God ; next, whether any particular 
mode was fixed ; and lastly, whether this mode was made essen- 
tial." If any particular mode be essential, (as some christian* 
think,) I will answer for it, you will find it plainly taught in 
Scripture. If you find different modes were practised, and n© 
particular one enjoined, you are allowed the liberty of choice. 
But that water should be applied in some way to the body, in 
the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, almost all Chris- 
tendom holds to bean express command. But, no; "Chris- 
tians differ about the mode, and therefore I will reject the thing 
itself; I will make God pay for the folly of his creatures!" 
This is making short work ! At this rate you would reject every 
thing. Christians differ as much about prayer 9 as about bap- 
tism ; whether it should be with a form, or extempore ; wheth- 
er in a kneeling, standing or sitting posture ; whether vocal or 
mental, &c. and yet does this writer never pray I Why not wait 
until an unessential form is settled ? People differ about religion 
itself. There are at least 3000 different sects in the world* 
worshipping the Deity under different modes and circumstan- 
ces; will this writer never serve God 6i until all the professors 
are agreed \ n 

PAUL, 



LETTER II 



ivvanth'dayy 7th Mo. 7, lftza, 



TO "PAUL," AND HIS FELLOW PROFESSORS. 

Knowledge and Wisdom, far from being* one, 
Have oft times no connexion. Knowledge dwells 
£n heads, replete with thoughts of other men ; 
Wisdom, in minds attentive to their own, 

C'WPElt. 

In my last, I did not present myself as the iS defender" of th« 
Society of Friends, and their doctrine. They do not need any 
defence from me. The foundation of our faith stands sure, and 
can never be shaken. It is that rock, upon which our Saviour 



41 

said he would build his church, against which, " the gates of hell 
can never prevail" And that rock is the revelation of the 
knowledge of the Father through the Son, in the souls of the 
children of men, (Matt. xvi. 18 :) However deficient .many of 
us may be in practice, our principles are in no danger from 
•• Paul." We have a witness in the hearts of thousands of 
f pious christians, who do not belong to our Society, that the 
leading doctrines of our christian profession are true. And the 
efforts of "Paul" cannot arrest the progress of this light in 
the earth. His declamation, and denunciations, contain nothing 
which bear the smallest resemblance to argument. In my last, 
with one or two exceptions, I affirmed nothing but what he ad- 
mits ; and the questions put to him are not answered in any oth- 
er way, than by the cry of " Deism," " Infidelity," " Atheism," 
&c. This is the Alpha and Omega of his essay ; the sum and 
substance of all he has said, or pretended to say in his professed 
reply to my questions. This method of handling an argument, 
is perfectly in accordance with the spirit and manner of his 
former essays. 

Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of old called our Saviour a 
blasphemer, and a deceiver ; and when they found that his pre- 
cepts and example, struck at the root of their pride and self- 
righteousness, and tended to lessen their unhallowed influence 
over the people, they set to work to prevent " the world from 
going after him." " He hath a devil and is mad, why hear ye 
him" — again, " he is a Samaritan and hath a devil." Indeed I 
have been forcibly struck from the beginning, with the resem- 
blance which this writer bears, in some particulars, to the Apos- 
tle Paul, before his conversion. Brought up at the feet of Ga- 
maliel, a doctor of the Jewish law; — his manner .of life was in 
conformity to the strictest forms of the Jewish religion : "he 
verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name 
(which implies power) of Jesus of Nazareth." — And he doubt- 
less believed, that when attempting to extirpate the heresy of 
Christianity, he was advancing " the glory of God, and the 
good of mankind." But the delusion vanished when he was 
met by the way, and the Sun of Righteousness shone around 
him : he then saw that in a state of darkness and unbelief, he 
had possessed a zeal for God which was " not according to 
knowledge." 

One of the exceptions alluded to above, is where, in my last, 
I call conscience the " creature of habit, the effect of education; 
which "Paul," in his usual manner pronounces to be " almost 
Atheism." Then if it be almost Atheism, to call conscience the 
creature of habit, it must be almost a deity. How does this ac- 
cord with what he has said of conscience in his 3d Letter? 
6 



Page 9th. Semi-deity as he now makes it, he there calls 
it "deceitful, defiled, deceptive," &c. Such incongruities men 
fall into when groping in the dark. I need not add much on 
this subject now, as every reflecting man must be sensible on a 
little examination, that what I have said of conscience is true. 
If an infidel has said the same thing before, that docs not alter 
the truth of the proposition. By admitting what we cannot 
deny, and what common observation will convince us *is true, 
we disarm the Infidel of one of his most powerful weapons. 
"Paul" has more to say on this subject; probably as much to 
tlie purpose as what he has said. 

I will now take my leave of " Paul" for the present, with 
observing, that we do not wish to turn him aside from his de- 
termination "to examine our leading doctrines by the light of 
truth, and expose to us, and to the world the danger of our sys- 
tem." But let him take heed that this examination be " by the 
light of truth,'* otherwise, he may "stumble and fall, and life 
place may not be found." 

I regret that the Editor* should have misconstrued my mean- 
ing, in the questions I asked. He will observe I did not express 
any decided opinion of the scriptures, in my last. But as I be- 
lieve there are many pious christians among you, whose views 
of the scriptures seem to differ from mine, and whose integrity 
and uprightness of heart, command my esteem and love ; on ac- 
count of such as these, and to show that we consider the Bible 
the best of books, I will as briefly as possible give some of our 
views of those writings. 

We value the scriptures, as containing the testimony of in- 
spired men, which testimony is true, and is profitable for " re- 
proof, for doctrine, for instruction:" The account there given 
of the creation of the world, and the fall of man; the prophecies, 
types and shadows, of the old dispensation, all foretelling, pre- 
figuring and centering in Christ the Redeemer : — his birth, life, 
example and precepts, death, resurrection, ascension and me- 
diation ; all these are recorded there in a style of simplicity, and 
grandeur, so happily blended and combined, that it has never 
been equaled. And these records are of more value to mankind 
than all the books that ever were written. But we dare not 
place the written testimony of inspired men in the Judgment 
seat which Christ alone should fill. 

For we believe, that we have need of the same light, the same 
spirit of truth, which was to guide into all truth, and to abide 
with the disciples, or true believers, for ever, to shine upon our 
understandings, to qualify us rightly to understand the scriptures 
and to see the beauty, and harmony, and spirituality of their 
testimonies : and we also believe that this same spirit which was 

* Alluding to some editorial remarks in the C. Repository, 



to be poured out upon all flesh under the gospel, is still contin- 
ued, and that by it sons and daughters now prophecy. 

You. call the Bible " the word of God." We use that term as 
it is used in Scripture, to apply to Christ, an eternal, uncreated 
spiritual essence. And because we do not call it the word, 
many honest men think it is lightly esteemed by us. 

Take the first verses of John's Gospel, and substitute Bible for 
word, and how will it read ? The following texts will show that 
the word of God is used in the same sense by the other Apostles. 
" Take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God/' (Eph. 
vi. 17.) "By the word of God, the heavens were of old," (2 
Peter iii. 5.) "The worlds were made by the word of God/ 9 
(Heb. xi. 3.) " John bare record of the word of God> and the 
testimony of Jesus," (Rev. i. 2.) which testimony, he says, "is 
the Spirit of Prophecy." (Rev. xix. 10.) and in this last chap- 
ter he tells us that he who is called the Word of God, is " Lord 
of lords, and King of kings." Brevity forbids that I should 
multiply quotations — what I have adduced are sufficient for my 
purpose. 

That the Bible is not here meant is evident. Procter quod 
unumquodque est tale, Mud ipsum est magis tale, or that which 
causes, is greater than the thing caused. 

That the text quoted by the editor from Peter, does not refer 
to any written testimony of Christ known to the Jews, I think 
is evident from the context. Peter had been speaking of the 
vision they had seen on the Mount where our Saviour was trans- 
figured before them, and they had heard a voice from Heaven, 
saying " this is my beloved Son," &c. what stronger outward 
testimony of the divinity of Christ, could possibly have been 
given to Peter than this ? It was in no respect inferior in point 
of evidence to the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai. — 
Yet in contradistinction from this, he says, " but we have a more 
sure word of prophecy," &c. meaning the internal evidence — 
that kind of evidence, by which he was enabled to say on another 
occasion, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and 
which "flesh and blood had not revealed to him." For none 
other than this kind of evidence could be "more sure" than that 
with which it is compared. Again, the concluding part of 
John's Revelation cannot be intended to mean any thing more 
than a command, not to add to, or take from the Book of Reve- 
lations, which he was then about to finish * for he expressly says 
"the prophecy of this book/ 9 else this same John would have 
subjected himself to the denunciation there mentioned,* for it is 
admitted that he wrote his Gospel and Epistles after he wrote 
the book of Revelations. 

I will now quote a paragraph from the book of discipline of 



44 

the Society of Friends, printed in 1806, page 23, to show their 
views in relation to the Scriptures and the Divinity' of Christ. 

" If any in membership shall blaspheme, or speak profanely 
of Almighty God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, he or she 
ought early to be tenderly treated with for their instruction, 
and the con\ incement of their understanding, that they may ex- 
perience repentance and forgiveness ; but should any, notwith- 
standing this brotherly labour, persist in their error, or deny the 
Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate 
revelation of the Holy Spirit, or the authenticity of the Scrip- 
tures; as it is manifest they are not one in the faith with us, 
the monthly meeting where the party belongs, having extended 
due care for the help and benefit of the individual without eifect, 
ought to declare the same, and issue their testimony (that is dis- 
own them) accordingly." 

What becomes of our * Deism, Infidelity,' &c. 

JOHN. 



NOTES, 

Inserted in the Repository July 7th, and 14th 9 1821. 

(£j t( .Iohn" authorises us to say that it was not his intention now to enter 
full} into the discussion going- on in the Repository — but from the manner in 
which his last was understood, he is desirous of giving his views a little more 
at large — he is however disposed to give place to Amicus, after the publication 
of the number inserted to day; reserving to himself the privilege of taking 
up the argument at any future period, if circumstances should render it ne- 
cessary or proper. 



djp" Amicus" asks the favour of his friend "Paul," to let him occupy a 
few numbers of the Repository, until he shall have advanced as far in the dis- 
cussion as his opponent, when they can start on even ground, which he thinks 
will make their communications much more interesting to their readers, and 
tend to bring the discussion to a speedier close. 

We think the request of "Amicus" so reasonable that " Paul" cannot ob- 
ject to it, and therefore shall expect a number from him next week. ed. 



OC/Taul agrees with Amicus that their "communications would be much 
more interesting to their readers, and their discussion brought to a speedier 
close," were they to start on "even ground," and continue at the same point 
in the discussion ; and therefore is willing to grant the " reasonable" request 



45 

©f Amicus to any reasonable extent. If Amicus will come directly to the 
point, and meet Paul fairly on the leading subjects he has broached, it shall 
not be his fault if Amicus be not heard till he is satisfied. But should he take 
the same circuitous rout, dwell as long on little things, and introduce as much 
irrelevant matter, (however important) in answering each particular letter, as 
he has in commenting on the Introduction, after hearing him a reasonable 
time, Paul will be compelled to interfere and claim his right. 

On the whole, Paul is willing to make no account of John, but suffer Ami- 
cus to occupy as many numbers as himself; after which he hopes his friend, 
for his own credit, will not make his own diffuseness a plea for any farther pri- 
vilege. 

From John, whether he be a Deist, Friend or both, Paul takeshis leave with 
some reluctance ; not because he admires his candour, but because he hasone 
trait seldom found among Friends, a willingness to come to the point— on this 
account Paul regrets he should be under any restraint and hopes to hear from 
him again when circumstances will permit. 



Srventh-day, yth Mo. 41, 182 r. 



LETTER V. 



Whether there is any weight in the sentiments I have ad- 
vanced to show why the society I advocate, should pursue their 
present course, I leave the candid reader to determine. I have 
given my particular views on the subject of Missionary con- 
cerns, which I have no doubt are in coincidence with those taken 
by a large number of my fellow professors. There is however 
one view of the case which may be stated as the great point 
which governs the Society in this and every other religious en- 
gagement. They hold the doctrine that without Divine assist- 
ance, no work of a religious nature can either be rightly un- 
dertaken or properly conducted. That we have no rightto enter 
on any religious concern however plausibly presented without 
the call and qualification of the Holy Spirit for the service. 
With respect to foreign Missions, I believe it may be safely as- 
serted, that hitherto the Society as a Body have not apprehend- 
ed it a religious duty to engage in them ; and that until they are 
so called and qualified, it would be contrary to their own prin- 
ciples, and very unsafe for them to meddle with them, lest in so 
doing they should incur that Divine rebuke, Isaiah i. 12 : " who 
hath required this at your hands } ." 

Paul in his 4th number, objects to my first communication, 
that like the Society of which I am a member, I make too much 
of little things. But if these little things are beneath his notice, 
why did he make them a cause of complaint against us ? — I have 
discussed no subject to which he had not first given sufficieni 



46 

importance by making it a topic of censure. — But the truth ig 
that those testimonies which he calls little, are only so in the 
view of corrupt human nature — they are neither little in their 
causes nor their consequences, they have Divine wisdom for their 
author, Apostolic precept and example for their confirmation, 
and human happiness for their end. Our Lord, who knew the 
importance of faithfulness in little things, has left us this truly 
divine aphorism, which should he deeply engraven on the heart 
of every Christian — " He that is faithful in that which is least, 
is faithful also in much : and he that is unjust in the least is un- 
just also in much." Luke xvi. 10. 

I will now briefly advert to some of those u little things" 
which «■* Paul" considers as matters of small moment, " ques- 
tions fit for none but children" — And first — of the ministry. 
Christ declared to the ministers commissioned by himself "Freely 
ye have received ;" your qualifications for the ministry have not 
been derived from colleges, theological schools or universities, 
but from the fountain of free Grace, and I command you " free- 
ly give." Now we have demonstrative evidence that the Apos- 
tles did not mistake the nature and intention of their Lord's 
command. Their precepts and practice afterwards bear testi- 
mony heyond the power of sophistry to invalidate, that they un- 
derstood him to institute a ministry independent of any pecuni- 
ary consideration. And yet " Paul" considers an infraction of 
our Lord's command, a disregard to the precepts and example 
of the Apostles a childish consideration. 

Secondly, of dress and address. The Apostle commanded 
the believers in his day not to be " conformed to this world," 
and that their adorning should not be the outward, but the in- 
ward, " adorning of a meek and quiet spirit." And our Sa- 
viour told his disciples to call no man master, for one was their 
master even Christ, and " all ye," says he, 6i are brethren." 
66 How" says he, " can ye believe who receive honor, one of 
another, and seek not the honor, that cometh from God only." 

Shall it then be deemed a matter of indifference whether a 
Christian professing to be redeemed from the spirit of the world 
shall stand an example of simplicity and non-conformity to its 
customs, or whether he shall enter with the giddy multitude in- 
to the changeable fantastic fashions of the times, into the use of 
false and flattering and often disgusting compliments ? Little 
indeed must he be acquainted with the important consequences 
of a life of true self-denial, who would pronounce this a trifling 
consideration. The shape and colour of a garment considered 
abstractedly from the disposition which adopts them, and from 
the effects they may have on others are indifferent. Friends 
never thought otherwise. But whether the professors of the 



47 

Christian religion, the Disciples of him who said "Learn of me, 
for I am meek and lowly in heart," shall in the true spirit of 
the world adopt its vain fashions, its frivolous customs, its cor- 
rupt language, its dissipating amusements, its flattering compli- 
mentary address — or whether they shall hold up a steady testi- 
mony, against them all, we do indeed consider a matter of great 
importance ! and in this sentiment we are abundantly confirm- 
ed by most satisfactory experience. 

Many of us know and feel the happy effects of an emancipation 
frdm the slavery of fashion, and are concerned that others may- 
enjoy this great privilege. We sincerely lament to see so many 
of our younger members so blind to the high privileges of their 
education, as willingly to be chained to the car of Fashion, to 
be dragged about in the insipid circle of worldly pleasures, 
to see them rejecting the liberty purchased by the blood and 
suffering of their predecessors, for those effeminate and trifling 
gratifications which cannot satisfy an immortal spirit, and 
which are so inconsistent with the purity and divine excellence 
of true religion — to see them adopting a course which instead of 
confering real dignity of character, draws their attention to ex- 
terior ornament — makes them triflers — bars the avenues to the 
improvement of the understanding, and renders them objects of 
pity or contempt to all those whose opinions are worth consult- 
ing. " Paul" may call these " little things," may stamp the 
standard we have raised against them with the epithet of " child- 
ish" — but with the most unequivocal evidence of experience, 
with the clear, plain precepts of the gospel in our favour, I hope 
and trust the Society of Friends may never let this excellent 
testimony fail to the ground, never consider that a ** little 
thing" which draws after it a train of consequences so import- 
ant and numerous that a volume might be profitably and inter- 
estingly filled in pointing them out. 

I will now turn to some of those great things which " Paul'* 
deems of " high moment and of eternal consequence." 

And first : Of sprinkling a little water in the face, which he 
terms " baptism ;" and of taking bread and wine, both of which 
he dignifies with the appellation of " Seals of God's covenant 
and badges of Christianity." 

That water baptism or the sacrament of the supper, as it is 
termed, are the " seals of God's Covenant or the badges of 
Christianity," we have no better evidence than <« Paul's" bare 
assertion. That they should ever have been so called, I deem 
the work of the busy system builder unsupported by one plain text, 
and directly contrary to the express language and general ten- 
or of Scripture doctrine, as I shall endeavor to show. They are 
both mere types at best. By some they are termed " outward 



4S 

and visible signs of inward and spiritual Grace. 5 ' Now all will 
acknowledge that inward and spiritual Grace may be and is 
largely known in the absence of these signs, otherwise thou- 
sands could experience the blessings of Divine Grace but once 
a month, and millions never at all. That these signs may be 
used in a state of gross pollution none will deny : that there is 
no necessary connexion between them and the things signified 
must be admitted. How then can they be " seals of God's cov- 
enant and badges of Christianity \" Such the Scriptures never 
call them — such in the nature oV things they cannot be. 
They may sometimes be used by the unregenerate and wicked ! 
Of what then are they seals ? Surely not of God's covenant, 
but rather of hypocrisy. Indeed it may be safely asserted that 
Divine perfection never ordained such uncertain, such equivocal 
symbols to be badges or seals of grace to the Christian ; and I 
cannot conceive how any who delight not to dwell in the dark 
and misty region of shadows should be willing to give them 
such high sounding appellations. 

I will now undertake to show from plain scripture testimony, 
First, What is the covenant of god with his children under 
the gospel dispensation, — and secondly, to demonstrate from the 
same authority what is the seal of that covenant, and 

First, — From the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 8th. — where 
the Apostle is engaged at large to show the difference between 
the typical dispensation of the law, and the spiritual nature of 
the gospel, and where for this purpose he quotes the Prophecy 
of Jeremiah which describes the new covenant dispensation in 
remarkably clear terms, " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I 
made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued 
not in my covenant, and I regarded them not saith the Lord.-— 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after those days, saith the Lord — I will put my laws into their 
minds, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a 
God, and they shall be to me a ye&ple, — and they shall not teach 
every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying know 
the Lord ; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." — 
See also Isaiah lix. 20, 21, quoted by the Apostle to the Ro- 
mans xi. 26, 27. These passages exhibit in so striking a man- 
ner the nature of the Gospel Covenant, and the unbounded good- 
ness of our Creator in the offer of such a compact with the hu- 
man family, that I cannot suppose that any further testimony 
can be needed to establish my first position. 

Secondly. The Apostle, Eph. chap. i. 13. probably allud- 



49 

ing to the passage I have quoted tells the faithful in Christ at 
Ephesus, that after they believed in Christ, they were sealed 
with the holy spirit of promise, ** which" says he, " is the 
earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased 
possession unto the praise of his glory." And in the same Epis- 
tle, chap. iv. 30. he exhorts them not to grieve the holy spirit 
of God "whereby" says he "ye are sealed unto the day of re- 
demption." By all which it is undeniably evident that no out- 
ward carnal rite is the seal of God's covenant, but this divine 
confirmation of the christian is the work of the holy spirit in 
the soul. 

I think I am aware of the force of habit, the strength of first 
impressions, and can make much allowance for the practices of 
those who differ from us in their forms of worship and the use 
of shadowy ceremonies — but I have sometimes wondered how 
any experimental christian who had known the " Love of God 
shed abroad in his heart," and understood the nature of divine 
communion with the soul, could afterwards turn to the " weak 
and beggarly elements and thereunto desire again to be in bon- 
dage," — could descend from the high, the tranquil, the soul-sat- 
isfying enjoyment of a spiritual "supper," to busy himself in a 
a round of typical ceremonies, weak indeed as pertaining to the 
conscience, beggar-like in that they have nothing to give us, 
and which can never make him that doeth the service perfect." 
See Gal. iv. 9. and also Heb. ix. 9, and 10, and Rev. iii. 20. 

But it is said we are commanded by divine authority to ob- 
serve these ceremonies. In my next number I shall give some 
of my views on that subject and endeavor to show the weakness 
<n£ sueli a position. 

AMICUS. 



Seventh-day, ?lh Mo. 21, iBzt. 

LETTER VI. 

Having shewn in my last Essay, that water baptism and the 
ceremony of taking bread and wine — the " Sealing Ordinan- 
ces," as " Paul" is pleased to term them, neither are, nor can, 
in the nature of things be any seal of the Divine covenant or 
badge of Christianity, that they never had any such use assign- 
ed them under the gospel, and are never so termed in the New 
Testament. — I shall now proceed to state my views of these cer- 
emonies : and first, of Water Baptism. 

In treating of this subject, I shall not inquire "about the 
mode of Baptism." It is not my business to shew the inconsis- 
7 



tency of those "who plead Scripture precept for this i( carnal Of* 
dmance," and blame us for the non-observance of it, yet never 
practice it themselves ; who tell us they have the " express com- 
mand of Christ" for its institution, and yet follow a Romish tra« 
dition in its stead- — who remind us of Philip and the Eunuch 
both going down into the water, yet content themselves with 
sprinkling a little in the face ; their conduct in this case, how 
strange soever it may be, is no concern of mine, who deny Wa- 
ter Baptism, by any mode whatever, to be an ordinance of Christ. 

As I do not understand that any Society of Christians believe- 
this rite to be essential to salvation, I know of but two argu- 
ments that can be used for its support. If these fail it must fall 
to the ground, and be swept away with the other weak and 
shadowy institutions of a former dispensation. The first is 
some " express command of Jesus Christ," The second '*. that 
the Apostles actually applied water to their converts," or in more 
unexceptionable terms, " actually baptized them in water," 

First Argument. " The express command of Jesus Christ. 
This is indeed essential to give it the character of a christian or- 
dinance,"' for we cannot suppose a christian institution unautho- 
rized by any law of Christ. Now we affirm that there is no such 
law. " Paul" asserts the contrary, and cites the following 
text to support his assertion, Matt, xxviii. (See his Essay, Let- 
ter 4th,) yet he afterwards in the last paragraph of the same 
Essay, finding that "water" is not mentioned in the passage 
tacitly admits there is no such "express command," but asserts 
ii that the commission of our Lord if not express was calculated 
to lead to Water Baptism. Here he stumbles at the threshold! 
And here I might safely rest this point, did he not by begging 
the question in several important particulars on the one hand, 
and making some unfounded assertions on the other, attempt to 
fortify his position against the weight of any argument that 
might be brought to bear upon it. In the first place, he assumes 
the point at issue, by saying that " our Lord knew the Apostles 
understood him to mean Water Baptism." In the next place he 
affirms that Spiritual Baptism was not signified by our Lord 
in the text, because, it was a " human act" which is there com- 
manded. Here his premises and his conclusion are both untrue, 
and we deny them both. Then he gravely tells us that these 
gratuitous assertions, and two or three texts by him quoted, in 
none of which the word Water is once mentioned, ought to end 
the controversy between us. Now I am persuaded that "Paul," 
(to use his own phrase,) has "imbibed erroneous views of the 
Society of Friends," if he thinks they can yield to such weak 
argument as this. And though he supposes " some other than 
the Holy Spirit, some light beside the the light of Scripture, 



m 

must be called in to interpret these texts as not enjoining Water 
Baptism," yet I hope to he ahle to show by clear evidence, that* 
the New Testament contains sufficient matter for the purpose I 
have in view. 

Passing over his assertion, that we say " by baptizing, noth- 
ing more than teaching is meant," which neither the Society of 
Friends, nor any of their " admired writers" have ever said ; I 
will now state our views of the Baptism of Christ, give such an 
explanation of the text quoted by " Paul," Matt, xxvii. 19, 20, 
as I think was intended by our Lord, and will correspond with 
the nature and design of the gospel dispensation. 

It is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament that 
two kinds of Baptism are distinctly understood. John the Bap- 
tist's expressions are decisive on this point, Matt. iii. 11. 
Mark i. 8 : "I indeed have baptized you with water, but he 
(Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." As it must 
be admitted that there are two kinds of Baptism, so it is evident 
that they are different in their nature. One carnal and element- 
ary, the other spiritual and divine. That the one was tempora- 
ry and evanescent, the other a perpetual ordinance in the church, 
is I think clearly evident from John the Baptist's own assertion, 
John iii. 28, 30 : " Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said 
I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He must in- 
crease, but I must decrease." Now it is so reasonable to sup- 
pose that when our Lord sent forth his disciples to preach and 
to baptize that he meant they should use Ms own baptism, and 
not the baptism of another, that one would think there could be 
no doubt on the subject, especially when we consider the nature 
of each : John's being elementary, typical, inefficient to cleanse 
from sin. Christ's evangelical, divine, powerful in purifying 
the soul, and exactly in accordance with the great design of his 
coming as stated by his beloved disciple John, «* Ye know he 
was manifested to take away our sin." l John iii. 5. 

But here follows the grand objection, and indeed the only- 
plausible objection that I have ever heard to this view of the 
subject. This being removed, I think every difficulty would 
vanish with it — the use of " weak and beggarly elements" would, 
indeed "decrease" — the rue baptism of our Lord would be bet- 
ter understood and more fully experienced in his chruch. 

We will now consider the nature of this objection, which is 
clearly and strongly expressed in " Paul's" address to us before 
quoted — " To baptize with the Holy Ghost was no more in the 
power of the Apostles than to create a world," This position is 
so clear that it cannot de denied, and I grant it in full. I am 
sure the Society of Friends never held a contrary opinion. But 
>ih order that this argument should have any weight, it must be 



I 



shewn that the text necessarily implies that if the Apostles were 
to baptize with the Spirit, they must do it by their own power. 

Now I think this is impossible to be demonstrated. I know 
very well that no man can by his own power baptize with the 
Holy Spirit — and it is equally certain, that no man can by his 
own power preach the Gospel of Christ — no man can by his 
own power convert a heathen — no man can by his own power 
put up to heaven one true prayer. " No man, (says the Apos- 
tle, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.) can (truly) say that Jesus is the Lord, but 
by the Holy Ghost." 

This Divine Spirit sent down from Heaven, and operating on 
the soul of man, is as necessary to all these acts, and indeed to 
every act of true worship, as it is to baptize with the Holy Ghost 
— so that if <* Paul's" objection is valid in the first instance, it 
is equally valid in all the rest — if it proves that spiritual bap- 
tism is impossible to the true minister of Christ, it proves that 
all our worship, all our prayers are vain and useless. 

But our Lord who knew the objections that would be made to 
this divine commission takes care to obviate them, — First, by 
assuring his true ministers that " all power was given to him 
in Heaven and in earth." Where he is there is divine power — 
and then by giving them a promise, which has never been an- 
nulled, " Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world." 
I have commanded you to baptize with the Holy Ghost, and 
I will enable you to perform my command. 

If the limits of my Essays permitted it, I could show from 
clear texts of Scripture, that this kind of baptism did actually at- 
tend the Apostles' ministry, as in Acts xi. 15. — and we do certain- 
ly know from real experience, that though it is not confined to 
time, place or circumstance, yet that it attends the gospel min- 
istry, down to the present day, which to us is conclusive on this 
point. 

Second Argument. I will now take up the only remaining ar-~ 

fument with which I am acquainted that is used to prove water 
aptism to be a Christian ordinance. It is stated by " Paul" 
in these words, " The Apostles actually applied water to their 
converts." He ought to have said, « actually baptized them in 
water : for I cannot find in all the New Testament, one solitary 
instance of their ajyplying water to their converts^ though there 
are several instances where they applied their converts to the 
water. 

In order to understand the value of this argument, it will be 
necessary to take a view of the state of the primitive Church 
for the first thirty years after the crucifixion of our Lord . I will 
endeavour to do this from the plain testimony of the sacred 
writings, the legitimate source of evidence, and the best kind of 



55 



testimony left us of its condition during that period. From this 
source it is very evident that the Apostles and primitive believers 
did not suddenly perceive the true design of the advent of our 
Lord, and in many things were mistaken as to the real nature of 
the dispensation he came to introduce. In proof of this I shall 
adduce some plain scripture testimony as a kind of evidence that 
we all agree is decisive on any question relating to our faith. 

The first case I shall bring into view, is that of the Apostle 
Peter, who during eight years after our Lord's crucifixion, re- 
mained under a belief that it was unlawful to communicate with 
the Gentiles, or to preach the gospel to them. This mistake is 
the more remarkable as the prophets had so clearly predicted 
the call of the Gentiles, and their equal participation in the be- 
nefits of Christ's coming, and also as Peter had had the benefit 
of his Lord's example, which was certainly calculated to re- 
move such an error ; yet notwithstanding all this, so strong 
were his prejudices against the Gentiles that the force of a. Di- 
vine vision was employed to remove them ; it was not till then 
that he perceived " of a truth that God is no respecter of per- 
sons, but that in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh 
righteousness is accepted of him." And it appears by the his- 
tory that Peter was afterwards called to a sharp account for his 
condescension. Those members of the Church who had been 
converted from Judaism contended with him on the subject, 
blaming him for going in unto the Gentiles and eating with them ; 
and it was not until he had related the circumstances of his vi- 
sion that they " held their peace." See Acts x. and xi. 

It also further appears that nineteen years after our Lord's 
ascension, the question whether all the members of the Chris- 
tian Church should submit to the rite of circumcision was de- 
bated in a council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, 
when it was first settled that the Gentile brethren should be ex- 
empted from this ceremony. See Acts xv. Twenty years af- 
ter the Ascension, Paul the Jlpostle of the Gentiles circumcised 
Timothy himself. Acts xvi. 3. Twenty-two years after the 
same period, Paul took the Nazarite's vow as prescribed m Num- 
bers vi. and when the days of his separation were ended, had 
his head shaved, to show the accomplishment of his vow. Acts 
xviii. 18. Twenty-seven years after the same period, the same 
Apostle at the particular request of the Apostle James, and all 
the elders of the Church of Jerusalem, took four men who had 
made the vow of the Nazarite, and purifying himself with them 
(according to the Law of Moses,) entered into the temple to sig- 
nify the accomplishment of the days of purification until that an 
offering should be offered for every one of them." See Acts xxi. 
26. This circumstance is marked with peculiar force when we 



54 

consider that this act of the Apostle, at the request of the Church* 
was a Jewish rite 9 was one of the ordinances abolished by Christ 
and by him taken out of the way, " nailing it to the cross" — it 
was a rite accompanied with numerous sacrifices. A lie-lamb 
for a burnt offering — a ewe lamb for a sin offering — a ram for a 
peace offering-^-a basket of unleavened bread — cakes of fine flour 
mingled with oil — wafers of unleavened bread anointed with 
oil — meat offerings and drink offerings. 

Now can it be a matter of wonder if these eminent Apostles 
and elders of the church, twenty seven years after the introduc- 
tion of the gospel which was intended to put an end to the cere- 
monial institutions of the law that " stood only in meats and 
drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed on 
them till the time of reformation." Heb. ix. 10. I say can it be 
any matter of wonder that the apostles and church who were so 
zealous in the Law of Moses, twenty-seven years after it was 
abolished, should also be found in the occasional use of John's 
Baptism ? If they could yet light up their altars, slay their beasts 
and offer their victims, is it any wonder they should not yet lay 
aside the Baptism of Water? I leave the reader to draw his own 
conclusions. 

There is one more circumstance which I think worthy of re- 
mark, before I leave this subject. Twenty-Jive years after the 
day of Pentecost, Paul met Peter at Antioch, where they had 
an open dissension on the subject of Jewish ceremonies. Paul 
withstood him to the face, and sharply rebuked him for compel- 
ling " the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ;" but what was very 
singular the Apostle Paul himself, two years after he had thus 
severely blamed Peter for his dissimulation, went to Jerusalem 
and fell into the same snare, by conforming to Jewish cei-emonies, 
at the request of the Apostle James and the church, and was 
near losing his life in consequence. See Acts xxi. 31. 
Gal. ii. 11. 

From this view of the subject, it is evident that the practice 
of the Apostles, with respect to outward ceremonies and the use 
of carnal ordinaiices in the early periods of the church, is no infal- 
lible criterion of their evangelical nature. .They had been edu- 
cated in them, were strongly attached to them. These ceremo- 
nies had been divinely instituted and reverently regarded. It 
is not therefore reasonable to suppose they could be instantane- 
ously abandoned. It fully appears from the scriptures, that the 
primitive ministers of the church were slow to perceive their in- 
consistency with the gospel dispensation, and that after this was 
discovered they were cautious of alarming the prejudices of their 
new converts by preaching against them ; that they therefore 
not only indulged them in the use of Water Baptism, but <rf 



many other ceremonies which were instituted by the Law of 
Moses, as we see by the foregoing quotations. 

It is said the "Apostles actually baptized their converts in 
water," and the inference drawn from this fact is that ministers 
now ought to do so too. Now if this is sound reasoning in one 
case, it must be sound in another. The Apostles actually cir- 
cumcised their converts, therefore we ought to circumcise ours. 
The Apostles compelled their converts to live as do the Jews, 
therefore we ought to compel ours to observe the Laws of Moses. 
These conclusions though fairly made from the premises, I ap- 
prehend few will admit. The argument drawn from the practice 
of the Apostles, if it prove any thing, proves too much, and 
therefore the whole conclusion falls to the ground. 

We find however in the later periods of the church when the 
Apostles had fully experienced the inefficacy of Water Baptism, 
and the powerful nature of the baptism of Christ, that according 
to the prediction of John the Baptist, the use of water decreased. 

Paul speaking of Water Baptism expressly tells the Corin- 
thians lie thanked God that he had baptized so few of them, 
for Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ; 
which could not be true if our Lord in that commission, Matt. 
xxviii. 19. to his ministers meant Water Baptism. And Peter 
speaking of the baptism that saves the soul, says it is not the 
putting away the filth of the flesh, which is the only property of 
the watery institution, but the answer of a good conscience to- 
wards God, which is the express design and true effect of the 
baptism of Christ. See 1 Cor. i. 14. and 1 Peter iii. 21. 

The Apostle to the Ephesians, Chapter iv. declares " there 
is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God, and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through you all, and in you all." This 
one Baptism is the baptism of that one Lord, and not the carnal 
baptism of one of his creatures, else we must exclude the baptism 
of the one Spirit by which all true christians are baptized into 
the one body: for saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. xii. 13. "By one 
Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made 
to drink into one Spirit." 

It is clear from many plain texts of Scripture, that " Water 
Baptism" is not the baptism of Christ. It is expressly assert- 
ed, John iv. 2. that Christ did not practice it, and there is not 
the least proof that he ever commanded it. It is contrary to 
the nature and design of the gospel, which was not intended to 
institute signs and symbols, but to bring in everlasting righteous- 
ness in their stead. And therefore, the Society of Friends, in 
conformity with what they deem plain scripture doctrine, dare 
not " turn again to the weak and beggarly elements," Gal. iv. 



56 

9. but direct their attention and the attention of their hearers, 
to Christ the anointed teacher of the New Covenant Dispensa- 
tion, that " word of grace" in the soul which is able to build it 
up in the most holy faith, and give it an inheritance amongst all 
them that are sanctified. 

In my next, I intend to treat of the Passover Supper, com- 
monlv called the Eucharist. 

AMICUS. 



Seventh-day t -jth Mo. 28, 1821. 

LETTER VII. 

In my last Essay, I treated of Water Baptism, and proved by 
many plain Scripture Testimonies that it is no " Ordinance of 
Christ," — that our Lord never practised it, nor gave any pre- 
cept or command to his disciples to use or administer it in any 
way whatever. I now come to give my views of what lias been 
emphatically termed " Jlugitstissimum Eucharistiae Sacramen- 
tum," the ceremony of taking Bread and Wine, from which, an 
eminent christian and scholar of the seventeenth century has 
said, "not only the greatest and fiercest and most hurtful con- 
tests, both among the professors of Christianity, in general, and 
among Protestants in particular have arisen, but, also such ab- 
surdities, irrational and hlasphemous consequences have ensued, 
as make the christian religion odious and hateful to Jews, Turks 
and Heathens. 

I shall first attempt to shew that this is no institution of Christ. 
Secondly, that it never was practised by the Apostles ; and 
thirdly, that it is contrary to the nature of the Gospel dispensa- 
tion. And 

First. That this is no institution of Christ, is I think, evident 
from the language of all the four Gospels. Matthew and John 
were the only Evangelists who were present at the Feast which 
has given rise to this ceremony. John it appears thought the 
circumstance so immaterial, that he has given no account of it, 
although he relates some remarkable occurrences which took 
place when the Supper was over, and which I shall have occa- 
sion to notice hereafter. In order that the reader may judge 
how far the text will support my present position, I will quote 
the passage as it stands in Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 19. 

"Now the first day of the Feast of unleavened bread the disci* 
pies came to Jesus, saying unto him, where wilt thou that we 
prepare for thee to eat the Passover? And lie said, go into the 
<eity to such a man and say unto him, the Master saith ray time 



57 

is at hand, I will keep the Passover 2d thv house with my disci- 
ples. And the disciples did as Jesus had commanded them, and 
made ready the Passover," 

In tbesethree short verses the " Supper" is three times called 
the " Passover," and once the u Feast of unleavened bread." I 
think that this passage clearly proves that this was no new In- 
stitution. It was the " Feast of the Passover" instituted fifteen 
hundred and eighty years before that time. 

I am not ignorant of the attempts which have been made by 
College made christians to prove that this was not the Jewish 
Passover which our Lord celebrated — they saw that this view 
of the subject militated against the high character they had 
stamped on this ceremony. Such weak efforts can however have 
no other effect than wholly to invalidate the sacred text, since no 
proposition can be more clearly demonstrated by scripture, no 
fact better established than this can be. Matthew three time* 
writes it " the Passover." Mark writes it five times " the Pass- 
over," Mark xiv. Luke writes it six times " the Passover,'* 
Luke xxii. and John the Evangelist calls it " the Feast of the 
Passover," John xiii. These authorities establish my first posi- 
tion beyond a doubt. I could bring to its support the opinions 
of many eminent writers of different religious persuasions who 
acknowledge that our Lord was celebrating "the Passover 9 * 
when he distributed the bread and wine at Supper, but I wish to 
be brief, and think it needless. 

I will now attempt to shew that our Lord on that occasion not 
only celebrated an ancient Jewish Festival, but that he instituted 
no new ceremony at that time. The breaking of Bread and dis- 
tribution of Wine with the blessing on both, were the common 
rites of this Feast, as Cradock, in his Harmony of the Four 
Evangelists assures us on the authority of Jewish writers. As 
the account is interesting and pertinent to my purpose, I will 
make an extract from it. 

1. " When all things appertaining to the Feast were prepar- 
ed, and all persons belonging to that company were ready, the 
chief man of the company takes a cup of wine and blesseth it in 
some such words as these — Blessed be thou O Lord, who hast 
created the fruit of the Vine," &c. 

2. '* The table was then furnished with provisions of several 
sorts, viz. bitter herbs, unleavened bread, the body of the pas- 
chal lamb roasted whole. The later Jews added a dish of 
thick sauce, called Charosett, made of dates, figs, rasins and 
vinegar mingled together, (which was not commanded in the 
Law) as a memorial to them of the clay in which their fathers 
laboured in the land of Egypt." 

3. " The chief man of the company takes the sour herbs and 

8 



58 

blesses them, &c. and eats thereof the quantity ©f an Olive, and 
distributes to the rest." 

4. "Then he takes the dish or charger, which held the un- 
leavened bread or cakes, and laying by a piece of the unleaven- 
ed bread to be taken afterwards with the paschal lamb at the 
close of the supper, he blesses the bread in such words as these — 
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, who bringest forth bread out of the 
earth, &c. Then he breaks it and eats of it." 

5. " When this is finished, he begins the second cup of wine, 
and the rest follow him. Then children used to be brought in, 
and were made to ask, what is the reason this night differs so 
much from other nights — instancing many particulars of the 
festival solemnities. Then the master of the feast begins a nar- 
rative, telling how they were all servants in Egypt, and that 
night God redeemed them, &c. this kind of declaration or shew- 
ing forth the occasion of the Passover, and God's wonderful 
goodness to them in their deliverance, they call Haggadah. 
This annunciation or shewing forth to their children the Lord's 
wonderful goodness and mercy, we find commanded in Exodous 
iii. 8, & xii. 26, 27." 

6. " Then he takes that part of the unleavened cake which 
was laid aside before, and blessing it and giving thanks for it as 
before, he distributes to every one a piece to eat with the paschal 
lamb, of which each person was bound to eat as much as the 
quantity of an Olive at least." 

7. " All this done, they drink the third cup, called the cup of 
Blessing or thanksgiving, after meat. And this third cup which 
was after supper, was the cup which our Saviour (as it scemeth) 
applied to a new spiritual signification." 

8. "After this they sung the 6 Hallel' or Hymn, and so con- 
cluded the supper." So says Cradock. 

Thus it appears that our Lord did not then institute any new 
ordinance, and that he attended to those rites only, which were 
universally observed by the Jews at the Feast of the Passover* 
As chief man of the feast he only performed those ceremonies 
which the chief man of this feast always performed at the cele- 
bration of it; though as Cradock says " he applied them to a 
new spiritual signification." He endeavoured to turn their at- 
tention to the mystical import of this solemn festival . The words 
" This do in remembrance of me," are in the 'present tense, they 
allude to & present ad, and simply mean as I conceive, "eat this 
bread in remembrance of its great antitype, the Spirit of Christ, 
who is able to deliver you from a harder bondage than Pharaoh's, 
a deeper darkness than the darkness of Egypt." 

If those who differ from us in opinion, do not hold the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, I cannot see how they can fairly put a 



59 

different construction on our Saviour's words — He says, <•' this 
ia my body which is given for you — this is my blood of the New 
Testament,'' — here he calls the bread and wine his body and 
blood, Now I cannot see more than two ways of interpreting 
these expressions — the one literally, the other spiritually. If 
we take them literally, we fall into downright popery, we em- 
brace the dark doctrine of Transuhstantiation — if we take 
them spiritually, they must refer to his spiritual body and blood. 
The Society of Friends prefer the latter mode of interpretation, 
for which preference, I will quote some plain passages of Scrip- 
ture, exactly pertinent to this subject, in which the interpreta- 
tion we have adopted, is sanctioned by the highest authority, 
that of Christ himself. 

Then Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, ex- 
cept ye eat the Jlesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye 
have" no life in you. Whoso eateth my Jlesh and drinketh my 
blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day : 
for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He 
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I 
in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the 
Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is 
that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did 
eat Manna, and are dead ; he that eateth this bread shall live 
forever." John vi. 53. At these expressions the disciples of our 
Lord murmured ; they did not perceive their mystical meaning — 
their views were jet carnal. He, when he knew they murmured, 
said to them, u Doth this offend you V 9 He seemed surprised 
that they who had so often heard him deliver divine truths in pa- 
rables and allegories, should be offended at this mode of speech— - 
and then added, "It is. the Spirit that quickeneth (that giveth 
life) the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto 
you they are spirit and they are life." Here he unravels the 
mystery ! Shews them that under the figures of bread and flesh 
and blood he was speaking of that divine Spirit which only can 
give life to the soul — a participation in which is the true Supper 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. See Rev. iii. 20. 

Had the church of Rome taken Christ as his own interpreter, 
we should never have heard of the monstrous doctrine of Tran- 
substantiation, they would not have disgraced the profession of 
the christian religion by faggot and fire, torture and bloodshed 
to enforce their carnal views. If the reformed churches had 
clearly perceived the meaning of this text, " my words they are 
spirit and they are life," we should not see them at this day per- 
petuating the -Jewish Passover under the appellation of " a sacra- 
ment" under the title of a Romish military oath, a word having 
no synonym in the sacred volume, neither should we hear them 



60- 

ealling it a u Seal of God's Covenant' 9 contrary tc the express 
language of scripture, and without one solitary text to support 
its title to such a distinction. 

When the reformation from Popery was carried on hy Luther 
and Calvin, they differed widely on the subject of this " sacra- 
ment" as it is termed. Luther held the doctrine of Consubstan- 
tiation, that is, that the very body and blood of Christ, the same 
that was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered under Pontius 
Pilate is after consecration by the priest, substantially present to- 
gether with the substance of bread and wine, and that the wor- 
thy receiver partakes of both. Calvin taught that the outward 
body and blood of Christ are not there corporeally or substan- 
tially, but yet that it is really and sacramentally received by the 
faithful in the use of bread and wine ; but how this outward 
body and blood could be corporeally absent and yet really present, 
Calvin confessed he could not explain,* and indeed it is impos^ 
sible to explain it. In such absurdities, such inextricable dif- 
ficulties do men involve themselves by leaving the plain path 
marked out by our blessed Lord, to wander in the confused la- 
byrinth of human contrivance. 

Modern Calvinists and others, seeing many insurmountable 
difficulties in both these schemes, have I believe, lowered their 
views of this " ordinance" as they call it, and now consider it 
€i a commemoration of Christ's death." I will now offer a few 
remarks on the latter view of this subject. If my reader will 
consult the accounts given by the three Evangelists, who relate 
the circumstances of this supper, he will find. that Luke is the 
only one who adds any words importing a remembrance of 
Christ — " This do in remembrance of me." Our Lord does 
not say, do this in remembrance of my death — literally it con- 
veys no such meaning, but taken in connexion with the context 
appears clearly to mean, that as the bread and wine were sym- 
bols of his spiritual body and blood, so they should at that time 
eat of that bread and drink of that cup in remembrance of that 
Divine Spirit which should shortly be poured out upon all flesh 
in a more eminent degree than it then was under the Jewish dis- 
pensation. 

I think the unprejudiced reader must be satisfied with the 
proofs I have adduced to show that the use of bread and wine as 
a religious ceremony " is no institution of Christ's." The lim- 
its of my essay will not permit me to pursue the subject further 
at this time— in my next I shall endeavour to show — that the 
Apostles never used them as a religious rite, for this purpose I 
shall as heretofore rely on plain Scripture evidence, an authori- 
ty that I am fully persuaded will confirm such a position. 

amicus; 

* See his Institute lib. iv, chap. 17, sect. 32 



61 

Seve&k-day, jth Mo. *i, is;?, 

NOTES. 

AMICUS TO PAUX.* 

S3* " Amicus 1 ' acknowledges " Paul's" condescension in 
permitting him to take even ground with him, and will endea- 
vour " to come to the point," in the discussion now pending, as 
directly as the nature of his concern will admit. It ought how- 
ever to be remembered, that the view of " Amicus," as express- 
ed in his first number, was not to enter into a controversy. He 
knew that the Society of which he was a member, was grossly 
misrepresented, he believed that many pious persons of other 
religious persuasions, had been made to suppose that we held 
doctrines inimical to the christian religion. It was for the sake 
of these, principally, that he took up his pen. To appear on 
the Arena, in the character of a religious gladiator, was not his 
design. Such a character might amuse the thoughtless multi- 
tude, but could not advance the Redeemer's kingdom in the 
earth, neither did he suppose that he could produce any effect on 
those whose interest it is to traduce us, or on those who are so 
fcigotted as to suppose there are no christians beside the subscri- 
bers to their own creed. With these views, he has abstained 
from the use of abusive epithets. He has not called his adversa- 
ry "a Deist," an " Atheist,'* an "Infidel" or a "Heathen." 
He is aware that such a course might suit a vulgar taste, but 
must offend the sober candid christian of all denominations. 
He remembers that to " be courteous," is a precept of the gos- 
pel. 1 Peter iii. 8 : and has not forgotten the scripture admoni- 
tion, "Let not him that girdeth on the harness, boast himself as 
he that putteth it off." A man may vindicate his opinions with- 
out being rude, may sustain the character of a christian, without 
laying aside the gentleman. "Amicus" still means to pursue 
his original plan, and asks no more than a fair hearing, and he 
may add, from the candid conduct of the Editor so far, he con- 
fidently expects it. He will be as brief as the design of convey- 
ing information, to the candid inquirer will admit. And though 
he thinks he ought to have room to answer objections already- 
made against us, before any more are brought before the public^ 
yet if the Editor thinks otherwise, he will cheerfully submit. 

* This note should have been inserted previous to the last, or 7th Letter of 

A>1ICU9. v ed's. 



Saturday, yuly 23, 182;. 
PAUL TO AMICUS. 

" Let the righteous smite me it shall be a kindness ; and let 
iiim reprove me it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not 
break my head 5 for yet my prayer shall be for them." Ps. 141, 5. 

Though I am not conscious of using in my letters to the 
Friends, one expression in the least degree untrue, unjust or un- 
charitable ; and though I have not used one expression more se- 
vere than I would have used, on a similar occasion, to my dear^ 
est friend ; yet from your general candor and moderation, and 
the frequency with which you censure my style and manner, I 
am bound to suspect myself of some error on this head. And 
therefore, to spare your feelings, and prevent so much waste of 
time and temper I promise hereafter to be more watchful of my 
spirit, and careful of my language. Yet however " rude and 
imcourteous" I may have been, I can never have deserved the 
unkind, ungenerous insinuations of last week. However, this 
I leave "to Him who judgeth righteously." — Whether it be more 
"rude" in me to attack doctrine, or in you to arraign motives; 
whether it be more " uncourteous" in me to retire that you 
may have place, or in you to croud me out of my place; — wheth- 
er it be more "gentlemanly" in me to treat Amicus with re- 
spect, or in him to treat Paul with contempt 5 whether it be 
most " gladiatorial," instead of meeting me in the open " arena" 
of fair controversy, to retire behind a fort and say " stand still 
and let me fire." or to stand unarmed and say fire away " till 
you are satisfied, 9 '' — is of little consequence, as no impropriety 
on your part will justify any on mine. 

In this discussion, (which is not the ebullition of a moment, 
but the result of much prayer, of long anxiety and earnest in- 
quiry after duty) I have the clearest consciousness of 'purity of 
motive and of that heaven-born charity which desires the highest 
welfare of all mankind. In it I am prepared for much censure 
and reproach from mistaken Christians and an uncandid world. 
" None of these things move me," neither count I my reputa- 
tion dear, so that I may propagate the truth. After hearing 
your preachers, reading your books, conversing with your peo- 
ple, and observing your conduct for many years, I do sincerely 
believe, as I know the greatest and best men in our country be- 
lieve, that Friendism (excuse the term) is a specious kind of in- 
fidelity, a spurious Christianity, a graft of Deism upon the gos- 
pel stock. I speak of your system as a system without denying 
what I fully believe, that there are among you real saints. The 
above being my most sincere belief, is it reasonable to demand 
that I should treat your errors as innocent, or be at all equivocal 



63 

in the opinions I express ? I wish always to speak in Christian 
simplicity and call things by their right names. Whether or 
not, my Views are erroneous, is yet to be seen. But of this I 
assure you, no individual, in or out of your Society, will rejoice 
more sincerely in your complete vindication from all the charges 
alleged against you, than he whom you treat as a sectarian, a 
bigot, a persecutor and religious gladiator. 

The most important topics of discussion, (If any can be more 
important than the Supreme Authority of the Scriptures) are yet 
to come. The subjects of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, were 
discussed before the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and Justi- 
fication, not because they were deemed more important, but be- 
cause your doctrines, which on everij essential point are very 
equivocal and obscure, on these subjects were plain and palpable. 

Your late, long and most ingenious essay against water Bap- 
tism, I am very anxious to answer. But as it seems to be your 
wish to #void direct controversy, if you will condescend to ex- 
plain your views of the Scriptures, the Trinity, the Divinity of 
Christ, and Justification, I will wait witli patience for weeks, 
and even months. A regular alternation of argument however, 
would better suit my time and taste. I leave you, however, to 
your choice, only assuring you of my full purpose of heart to 
prosecute this subject, and that whatever you may call me, 
however you may treat me, I am without hypocrisy, in true 
Christian charity, your affectionate friend. 

PAUL. 



Seventh-day >zth Mo. 4,1821. 

LETTER VIII. 

I now resume the subject commenced in my last Essay, in 
which I demonstrated by plain Scripture testimony that the ce- 
remony of taking bread and wine commonly called the " Eu- 
charist" was never instituted by Christ. I shall now pursue 
the other branch of my argument, and attempt to prove ; 
Secondly — " That it never was practised by the Jlpostles ," 
I am a ware of the difficulty of proving the truth of a nega- 
tive. I know that sometimes where the negative position is pal- 
pably true — where no one entertains the least doubt of it, it is im- 
possible to prove it. But I hope in the present case to satisfy 
every unprejudiced reader, by ample Scripture testimony and 
sound argument, that the Jlpostles never practised the ceremony 
of eating bread and drinking wine as a religious rite — that they 
never used them as a Sacrament or type of Christ's outward body 
or blood, or as a memorial of his death. 



64 

I suppose the advocates of the opposite side of the question 
will admit that if the Apostles had ever so used them, if they 
had considered the use of them as a necessary or even important 
memorial of the death of Christ, they would in some of their 
various writings, have left us some proof that they practised it 
themselves. I cannot see how any who contend for the plenary 
inspiration of the sacred Volume, who tell \is it contains the 
whole and perfect will of God, and it is a perfect rule of faith 
3tnd practice, can deny it. 

Now as the author of the Book, entitled, the " Acts of the 
Apostles" never mentions this ceremony as one of their acts ; as 
the several Epistles to the primitive Churches do not inform us 
that any of the Apostles ever used it, I think I might here safely 
rest the case, and fairly put my opponent to prove the contrary 
position. But as I am acquainted with the arguments generally" 
used on this occasion, I shall proceed to notice them. 

First, It is said *f we find several instances recorded by Luke, 
where the disciples broke bread together with thanksgiving, and 
that in these cases they were celebrating the Eucharist." But 
the conclusion drawn from these facts, is unwarranted by the 
premises, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate. In order that 
the reader may judge for himself on the point, I will quote all 
the passages recorded by Luke, that allude to this subject, which 
so far from confirming such an inference, will show that it is 
quite unauthorized. 

The first place where breaking of bread is mentioned is found 
In Acts ii. 42. The historian speaking of the new converts, 
says, " and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine 
and in the breaking of bread and of prayers." The second is in 
Acts ii. 46. " And they continued daily with one accord in the 
temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meal 
with gladness and singleness of heart." The third is when 
Paul met the brethren at Troas. Luke says, " upon the first 
day of the week, when the disciples came together to break breads 
Paul preached unto them, &c. and when he had broken bread and 
eaten and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he de- 
parted. See Acts xx. 7, 11. The fourth and last case of the 
kind was when Paul just before his shipwreck, after his fellow- 
passengers had fasted fourteen days and had taken nothings, 
addressed them encouraging them to eat. And after he had 
spoken " he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of 
them all, and when he had broken it he began to eat ;" then 
were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat. See 
Acts xxvii. 33, &c. 

Now I appeal to every unprejudiced reader to say if there is 
any thing in these texts that can authorize the conclusion that 



V 



(55 

cither the Apostle or the primitive Christians were in any of 
these cases celebrating the " Eucharist." Nothing as I con- 
ceive but a predetermination to support this carnal ordinance at 
the expense of common sense, would induce a writer to quote 
such passages for this purpose — that because men broke bread 
together, and afterwards were engaged in prayers — that because 
they broke bread from house to house and did eat their meat with 
gladness and singleness of heart — or because when they came 
together to break bread, and when one of them had taken it and 
broken it and eaten and talked a long while with the rest — or be- 
cause a minister of the Gospel after being tossed many days in 
a storm at sea, finding a favorable opportunity to satisfy the calls 
of exhausted nature, and desiring to encourage the dispirited 
weather-beaten mariners to take necessary food, had taken bread, 
and with thanks to a merciful Providence who had perserved their 
lives, had broken it and did eat — I say, that because of these 
facts we should infer a celebration of the Eucharist, is certainly 
one of the most extraordinary conclusions upon record. 

But those who contend for such a conclusion have other insur- 
mountable difficulties to encounter. I think my readers must 
have noticed as they attended to the texts I have quoted, that nei- 
ther the wine nor the cup were once mentioned or alluded to. Now 
if they had been celebrating a memorial of the death of their 
Lord, could they have omitted so important a part of the cere- 
mony ? And if they did omit it, did they not (according to the 
x iews of our opponents) break their Lord's express command, 
when he said "■ Drink ye all of it." " The cup," says Dr» 
Clarke, (the great champion of the Eucharist) " pointed out 
the very essence of the institution" — iS the ckp is essential to the 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper." All who are in the least ac- 
quainted with theological controversy, know how severely the 
Protestants have castigated the Roman Catholics for refusing the 
cup to the laity. The author last referred to, says " there is not 
a Popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people 
(and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord's 
Supper at all. Now if this be true, what conclusion must we 
draw From the practice of the primitive Christians, as recorded 
by Luke, who we see neither administered the cup, nor used it 
selves r I leave the reader to answer the question to him- 
self. 

But it may be said, " that perhaps Luke forgot to mention 
it." Ah ! no that cannot be. I am very sure that if the Evan- 
gelist had been one in sentiment with some modern Christians, 
he never could have forgotten it — he would have written it down 
in very conspicuous characters. He who was so very minute in 
his history as to relate the hoisting of a .mainsail, the weighing 
9 



67 

of an anchor, the loosing of the rudder bands, would not have 
Omitted to mention the memorial of his Lord's "precious blood." 

Let the serious reader maturely consider this subject, and I 
think he cannot avoid the conclusion that the primitive Chris- 
tians were neither celebrating the Passover nor any other reli- 
gious ceremony on these occasions. The words " breaking bread 
from house to house, eating their meat with gladness and single- 
ness of heart, breaking bread and eating it, and talking a long 
7vhile — with the other I have quoted, certainly do not indicate a 
celebration of the Eucharist; they rather convey the idea that 
these good men were thankfully accepting the food which a 
bountiful Providence had afforded for the sustenance of their 
lives. 

But happily for the more perfect illustration of this subject, 
Luke himself gives us a key to unlock the meaning of these ex- 
pressions. He leaves us not to rest upon the basis of conjec- 
ture. We are informed that in the early period of the church the 
believers " had all things in common." See Acts iv. 32. &c. 
6i for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them 
and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them 
down at the Apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every 
man according as he had need." Here we see the old system, 
the private exclusive appropriation of property Avas abandoned, 
for the purpose of creating a common stock. He afterwards, Acts 
chap. vi. describes the difficulties which arose out of this new 
system. " For when the number of disciples was multiplied, 
there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, 
because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them 
and said, ** It is not reason that we should leave the word of 
God to serve tables." Upon which seven men whose names are 
mentioned, were appointed to the particular duty of serving the 
tables. From these views it appears evident that their common 
fund was appropriated to furnish common tables, where the dis- 
ciples ate in companies in the private dwellings of the believers. 
This affords a satisfactory explanation of the terms " breaking 
bread from house to house," where " they eat their meat with 
gladness and singleness of heart" — in a thankful remembrance 
of the author of every blessing, with prayer and supplication 
for the continuance of his mercy. 

I shall now advert to the only remaining passages in the New 
Testament on which our opponents rely for the support of the 
ceremony of taking bread and wine as a memorial of the death 
of Christ. They are found in the xth and xith chapters of 
the Epistle to the Corinthians. 

In the tenth chapter the Apostle is engaged to shew the Cor- 



6,7 

inthians that to eat at the tahle of idols and thereby to encour- 
age idolatry, is utterly incompatible with a spiritual commu- 
nion of a believer with his Lord, as from a perusal of the whole 
passage plainly appears, and which I can clearly demonstrate if 
it should appear necessary. Before I enter on the discussion of 
the subjects contained in the eleventh chapter of this Epistle, 
it will be necessary to give a short view of the state of the Cor- 
inthians : first, generally, and then of the church in particular. 
Ancient Corinth was one of the most opulent cities of Greece. 
Voluptuousness and Idolatry the general concomitants of wealth, 
were its characteristics. An incredible number of heathen dei- 
ties were there worshipped, to enumerate which would swell 
my Essay beyond its due limits. Venus was however the pre- 
eminent object of their devotions. Her splendid temple was 
furnished with a statue of the goddess, clad in bright armour — 
another of the god of love, and a third of the sun which had 
been adored at Corinth before the worship of Venus was intro- 
duced. Strabo informs us that the temple was so rich that it 
maintained more than one thousand harlots who were devoted to 
her service and ministered her unhallowed rites. We are in- 
formed by Athena^us, that the festivals of the Aphrodosia in 
honour of Venus were celebrated in the city by women of infa- 
mous character, and with the most abominable ceremonies, 
Erasmus in his " Adagia," says that Corinth was filled with 
courtezans. The men were distinguished for their licentious- 
ness, luxury and idolatry. Such is the character of the Corin- 
thians as recorded on the page of history. How strikingly does 
this character correspond with that given by the Apostle, even 
of many of the professors of Christianity in communion with 
the church of Corinth. From Paul's Epistle it plainly appears 
that they were in a most disorderly state. The first chapter 
shews that divisions and contentions existed among them. In the 
third, he tells them they were yet carnal, and in proof of it, 
mentions that " envying, and strife, and divisions" were preva- 
lent in their church. In the fourth, we are informed that some 
were " puffed up," and the Apostle threatens to come to them 
with a rod. A crime that was not so much as named among the 
lascivious Gentiles is laid to their charge in the fifth chapter, 
and instead of mourning for it they gloried in it, for which the 
Apostle rebukes them. In the next they are accused of a liti- 
gious disposition. " I speak it to your shame," says the Apos- 
tle, u brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the un- 
believers ; now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, be- 
cause ye go to law with one another" — " Ye do wrong and ie^ 
fraud and that tjour brethren. Then after alluding to other abom- 
inations existing amongst them, the Apostle refers to their man- 



68 

ner of using bread and wine as a religious ceremony, and this is 
the only case of the kind, recorded of the professors of Christian- 
ity in the whole New Testament. 

It appears then that these conte fit ious, immoral, litigious, frau- 
dulent, carnal Corinthians were some how in the habit of eating 
bread and drinking wine as a religious ceremony. Their man- 
ner of doing it furnishes the Apostle with a topic of censure, and 
he rebukes them for it in a strain of severity, little usual with 
him. I will quote his words as they give us a striking memento 
of the degenerate state of the Corinthian church, " Now in this 
I declare unto you, 1 praise you not, that you come together, not 
for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come 
together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, 
and 1 partly believe it: for there must also be heresies among you, 
tbat they which are approved may be manifest among you. 
When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to 
eat the Lord's supper, for in eating every one taketh before other 
his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunken — 
What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye 
the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall 
I say to you ? Shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not. 

But it is said, that " it was the abuse of this ceremony that the 
Apostle reproved : his directions afterwards, how to use it right- 
ly, proves tbat he did not mean they should lay it aside." I 
grant he did not — this same Apostle in condescension to the pre- 
judices of the early christians and regarding their low state in 
the experience of vital Christianity suffered them to use the car- 
nal ordinances of Moses, which were abolished by Christ, long 
bef re, and in this ^ase of the Corinthians, he manifested the 
same indulgence until they should be further enlightened to re- 
ceive the Gospel in its divine purity. In this very Epistle lie 
gives us a strong reason for his condescension. 

" And I brethren," says he, " could not speak unto you as 
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 
I have led you with milk and not with meat, for hitherto ye were 
not able to bear it, neither yet are ye now able, for ye are yet car- 
nal. 99 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2, 3. 

Is it not a pity that those who contend for the use of bread and 
wine, as ^religious rite, should have no better example in all the 
scriptures, than the Jewish "feast of the Passover," and the prac- 
tice of these carnal Corinthians? the most distracted, conten- 
tious, immoral church then existing in all Christendom. # Yet 
so it is, rather than lay aside the use of this carnal ordinance 

* For a further illustration-of this fact, let my readers consult " a Paraphrase;- 
on the Epistles of St. Paul," by the celebratedJohn Locke. 



69 

which was never practised by the Apostles, they will plead the 
observance of it from the most objectionable examples. 

My second position, that this ceremony *> never was practised 
by the Apostles," is I think clearly proved. In my next num- 
ber, I intend to shew "that it is contrary to the nature of the 
ajOspel dispensation. 

AMICUS. 



Seventh-day, BthMo. n, 1821. 

LETTER IX. 

The third position stated in my first Essay, on the subject of 
''•The Eucharist," comes now to be proved. In my last I 
shewed by plain scripture testimony, that the Apostles never 
used bread and wine as a " religious ceremony." I now propose 
to shew from the same authority, that the use of these symbols 
as a religious rite, is contrary to the nature of the gospel dis- 
pensation. 

In order to illustrate my subject, I will first give my views of 
the nature of the Law as a dispensation of God to the children of 
Israel. In the next, I will endeavour to give a scriptural de- 
scription of the gospel dispensation, and conclude with some 
general observations on the whole subject. 

And First. The Laws of Moses were an outward code, a set of 
external rides for the government of the Israelites in religion, 
morals and civil life. They were adapted in divine wisdom to 
the state of a dark and benighted people. They were intended 
gradually to lead them from a state of gross superstition and 
idolatry to the worship of the one true God. For this pur- 
pose various outward ordinances were instituted, all having a 
typical meaning, and pointing with clearness to the great anti- 
type, in whom all these figures finally had their accomplish- 
ment; in short, they pointed to " Christ," who is "the end 
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth," 
Rom. x. 4. This code of laws, or as it is emphatically termed 
(( the Law" prescribed times, places and external rites in and 
through which their worship was to be performed. Their tem- 
ple had an outward glory — a worldly sanctuary — its ordinances 
of divine service — its tabernacle wherein was the candlestick and 
the table and the shew bread, and after the second veil the taber- 
nacle, which was called the holiest of all, and over it the cheru- 
bims of glory, shadowing the mercy seat, "which" saith the 
Apostle, Heb. ix. 9. &c. " was a figure for the time then present 
in which was offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not 



70 

make him who did the service perfect, as pertaining to the con- 
science — which stood only in meats and driiiks and divers wash' 
ings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of re- 
formation. 

Now this "first covenant" as the Apostle terms it, (how glo- 
rious soever in its season) was defective in the most important 
point. It was an external rule of action. Although instituted 
by divine authority, and attested by the most awful sanctions, it 
had not that internal, efficient energy which is necessary to pro- 
duce a radical change of character. A man might live blame- 
less concerning the righteousness of the law, Phil. iii. 6. and 
yet be a mad persecutor of good men — be destitute of charity or 
compassion for the innocent dissenter from his own creed, see 
Acts xxxvi. 11. Now this defect of the Mosaic code is not to 
be attributed to any oversight or imperfection in the Law Giver 
— it is a defect which in the very nature of things is attached to 
every external code of laws, let them be derived from what source 
they may; it is the sine qua non of all outward ordinances. 
Christ the divine author of our religion, "in whom were hid all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3, who per- 
fectly knew the weakness and inefficiency of every internal sys- 
tem of religion, did not come into the world to abolish the cere- 
monial laws of the Jewish Legislator, in order to institute a new 
set of outward ceremonies in their stea *\. He did not come to 
"t)lot out the hand writing of ordinances," Col. ii. 13, which 
were weak as pertaining to the conscience, and to substitute 
others equally impotent in their room. Neither did he find fault 
with the first covenant, because its " meats and drinks and di- 
vers washings and carnal ordinances" were not significant fig- 
ures of heavenly, things : — The sacrifices under the law, the 
sprinkling of blood, and the various legal purifications were far 
more lively emblems of the death of Christ, and pointed more 
distinctly to the means of salvation under the new covenant, 
than the use of bread and wine, can possible do. Let the veil 
of prejudice be effectually drawn aside, and all must see and ac- 
knowledge that the struggling dying lamb, its streaming blood, 
the altar prepared for the sacrifices, with all the solemn accom- 
paniments of the occasion, are far more striking symbols of our 
Lord's death, and would make a much deeper impression on the 
spectators of such a scene, than the ceremonies of "the Eu- 
charist." 

Secondly. I will now attempt to shew from scripture author- 
ity, that the gospel dispensation was intended to remedy the de- 
ficiency of the dispensation which preceded it, by introducing a 
powerful, internal, efficient rule of action, perfectly adapted to the 
lowest, as well as the highest intellectual capacities, equally : 
suited to all ages and to every people under heaven, . 



71 

For this purpose, I will introduce to the attention of my rea- 
der, that passage in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, where with 
inspired energy and clearness, he describes to the Jews the dif- 
ference between the old and new covenants. Speaking of ur 
Lord, the Apostle says, chap. viii. " He is the mediator of a 
better covenant, which was established upon better promises 
(than that of the law.) For if that first covenant had been found 
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 
But finding fault with them, he saitli, Behold the days come saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the cove- 
nant I made with their Fathers in the day when I took them by 
the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they 
continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith 
the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the 
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, J will put my 
laws into their mind and write them in their hearts : 
And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. 
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every 
man his brother, saying, know ye the Lord, for all shall know 
me from the least to the greatest," 

Here the Apostle quoting the prophecy of Jeremiah xxxi. 31, 
32, 33, 34, not only tells the Hebrews that the new covenant 
was not to be according to the covenant made with their Fathers, 
which " stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings and 
carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation.*' 
See Heb. ix. 9. but he shows what was to be the nature of this 
new covenant — a law written in the mind and in the heart — a law 
by which all should know him from the least to the greatest, — in 
fine, a spiritual covenant — the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

I could corroborate this view of the subject by a very numer- 
ous collection of scripture authorities, but desiring to be brief, 
I will only bring to the attention of my readers a few texts, 
which I apprehend will be sufficient to show that it is not to car- 
nal ordinances the christian is indebted for any gospel benefit, but 
that the true memorial of our Lord as well as every other spiritu- 
al blessing is the product of the Holy Spirit in the soul. 

" To this efficient cause (says a remarkable lucid writer of 
the last century) all the good that is done, all the virtue that 
is wrought in the church in general, or in any of its members,*' 
is to be ascribed. 

" The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, shall teach you 
all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, John xvi. 13. 
The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life, 2 Cor. iii. 6. By 
one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. xii. 13. 
But ye are washed — but ye are sanctified — but ye are justified in 
tlie name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 



1 Cor. vi. 11. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, 
hath made me free from the law of sin and death 9 Rom. viii. 2. 
If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye 
shall live; for as many as are led by the Spirit of God they 
are the sons of God, and if children then heirs, heirs of God and 
joint heirs with Christ," Rom. viii. IS, 14, 17. 

Thus we see that under the glorious gospel dispensation, it is 
to tins Divine Spirit that the soul of man is indebted for every 
christian grace. It is the remembrancer — the teacher — the guide 
— the baptizer — the purifier — the sanctifier — the justifier. — It 
makes free from sin — it mortifies the deeds of the body — it gives 
life to the soul, makes us children of God, and joint heirs with 
Christ in his kingdom of divine glory. 

He therefore, who has known a conversion from sin, and has 
heen made a partaker of this Holy Spirit, and afterwards goes 
into the ceremonial observance of carnal ordinances turns back 
from the new into the nature of the old covenant and falls direct- 
ly under the Apostolic rebuke, Gal. iv. 9 : M But now after that 
ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye 
again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye again de- 
sire to be in bondage ? Ye observe days and months and times 
and years, " I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you 
labour in vain." " Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from 
the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world 
are ye subject to ordinances after the commandments and doc- 
trines of men. *'■ Touch not, taste not, handle not — which all are 
to perish with the using," Col. ii. 20, 21, 22. 

How they who touch, taste, and handle, the elementary bread 
and wine, both of which perish with the using — how they who 
call it an ordinance and observe it daily or monthly or yearly, can 
avoid the rebuke of the Apostle, I know not ; hut let any of my 
readers who are seriously seeking after the truth, as it relates to 
this subject, turn to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ga- 
latians, and the second chapter of that to the Colossians, and I 
think he will clearly perceive that the Apostle and our opponents 
are not of the same mind. 

There is hardly a weaker argument advanced to support the 
observance of the ** Eucharist," than its importance an a memo- 
rial of our Lord. "He" saith the Apostle 1 Cor. vi. 17. "that 
is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." The union of the soul and 
body is not more intimate than the soul of the real christian is 
with Christ. The branch of the vine is not more closely unit- 
ed to its parent stem, the arm is not connected with the body in 
a more vital union, than the member of Christ is with the head 
of the church. — A woman may more easily forget her sucking 
child, a man more easily forget himself, than the truly spiritual 



christian can forget the fountain of his happiness, the spring of 
his purest delights. It argues a very low state of religious ex- 
perience, to say, that a monthly memorial of the death of Christ 
is a necessary memento to a true believer. Carnal ordinances may 
suit a carnal state. He that uses bread and wine as a memorial 
of our Lord, tells us how easily he can forget the hand that feeds 
him, how weak are his recollections of him who is a perpetual 
stream of bounty and goodness, who gives fertility to the earth, 
and happiness to the devoted soul. 

** Meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinan- 
ces" were only to continue till the time of reformation — this time 
of reformation was the institution of the new covenant dispen- 
sation. — The arguments in favour of outward ordinances, drawn 
from the practice of some of the believers in the early periods 
of the christian church are very weak — the work of reformation 
is not always sudden ; it is generally gradual, the man whose 
eyes our Lord opened, at first saw men as trees walking, Mark 
viii. 24. Many of the early converts to Christianity, both Jews 
and Gentiles, had from their infancy been taught to reverence 
the forms of exterior worship. It is not to be supposed they 
could instantaneously abandon them. We are not to expect the 
meridian splendor of the gospel sun when it first emerges from 
the misty horizon of types and shadows ; but as the evangelical 
morning advanced, their views of divine truth, became clearer 
and clearer — spiritual objects more and more distinct, and the 
new and living way, which is through the veil, was at length 
plainly marked out : so that thirty years after the conversion of 
the Apostle Paul, we find him in the Epistle to the Hebrews, de- 
lineating as with a pencil of light the boundary line between the 
dispensation of carnal ordinances and that of the new covenant, 
which stands wholly independent of them all and is to endure to 
the end of time. 

The subject is copious. I have constantly felt, in penning my 
sentiments on it, the narrowness of my limits, but having shown 
that the use of bread and wine as a religions act was never insti- 
tuted by Christ — that it was never practised by the Apostles, and 
that it is contrary to the nature of the gospel disj)ensation 9 I will for 
the present close the subject with the expression of a wish, that 
the enquirer after truth, who has felt sufficiently interested to fol- 
low me through the present discussion, would at his leisure take 
down his Bible and refer to the passages I have quoted, where I 
am persuaded he will find much interesting matter, further il- 
lustrative of the subject, and which \ have neither time nor room 
to insert in my Essays. 

I intend in my next, to give some of my views on the subject 
of the scriptures. AMICUS. 

10 



Seventh-day, tlk Mo. n, mi. 

NOTES. 

" Amicus*' in his former communication for the Repository, 
has distinctly stated, that his labours in the present discussion, 
are principally intended for the information of the sober, can- 
did, enquirer. To his readers of this class he is perfectly wil- 
ling to submit the question, whether he has " insinuated" any 
thing of an " ungenerous nature against his opponent. " Ami- 
cus" did think, and he does still think, that the free use of de- 
grading epithets, gratuitously applied to us, and unsupported by 
reasonable proof, was " uncourteous." If our adversaries sin- 
cerely believe that we are "Infidels" or "Deists," let them 
state their views of the principles of Deism, and then shew in 
what respect our doctrines, taken from our acknowledged writers, 
coincide with such principles. This course would be fair and 
honourable, and the public after hearing both parties would be 
able to decide how far such epithets were applicable to us. But 
instead of this, our opponent seldom puts his pen to paper with- 
out leaving it stained with some epithet calculated to defame us. 
Only last week after acknowledging his obligation " to suspect 
himself of some error on this head," after promising 6 * to be more 
watchful of his spirit," and "careful of his language" in future, 
he directly falls into his usual course. He tells us that he and 
some others "believe" that " Friend ism" (as he is pleased to 
term our principles, ("is a specious kind of Infidelity, a spurious 
kind of Christianity, a graft of Deism upon the gospel stock." 
Now, is this fair ? is it candid ? is it the legitimate fruit of that 
heaven-born charity which desires the highest welfare of all 
mankind ?" To say nothing of charity, is it common justice to 
lay upon us charges of the most degrading character, upon the 
slender ground of a " belief." Such a course must and will be 
reprobated by every reader whose opinions arc entitled to re- 
spect. If " Amicus" were to pursue such a course towards his 
opponent, the society whose principles he advocates, would be 
amongst the first to condemn his conduct. 

In the 13th number of the Repository Amicus courteously ask- 
ed the favour to be permitted to occupy a few successive num- 
bers, for the purpose of answering charges already before the 
public, previous to the exibition of any others. The Editor in 
the same number, declared this request to be so reasonable that it 
could not be objected to ; and in the succeeding number, 
" Paul" acquiesced in the proposition, at the same time, ad- 
mitting that the request was reasonable. After all this, " Ami- 
cus" is charged with crowding " Paul" out of his place.'/ What 
" Paul's place is, " Amicus" is at some loss to understand. Is 



75 

it his place, under a diguised name, to attack an innocent and un- 
offending people, and week after week, to load them with oppro- 
brious epithets — to hold them up to public view as Infidels, Athe- 
ists, Deists and spurious Christians ; and then to complain be- 
cause they ask as a favour what was obviously a natural right, 
to be heard before any further matter of a degrading character 
should be presented against them? If this is "Paul's" place, "Ami- 
cus" assures him that he has no wish "to crowd him out" — It is 
such a place as " Amicus" has no ambition to occupy. 

"Amicus" will close this note, with the observation that he 
lias no wish "to fire" at "Paul," neither has he any "fort" 
but truth and reason — that to make such remarks as are con- 
tained in this note, is far the most unpleasant part of his duty ; 
and he will venture to express a hope, that in future, the parties 
to the present discussion, may evince by the language and spi- 
rit of their respective communications, that thev understand the 
nature of that blessed religion which teacheth, that "though we 
speak with the tongue of men or angels, and have not charity we 
are nothing." 



As Paul has now been silent for six successive weeks — as 
Amicus has written nine numbers, and with John, eleven num- 
bers to his seven; — as he has written four on Paul's short intro- 
duction, two to his one on Baptism, and three to his one on the 
Lord's Supper; and as Amicus is not so inferior in talents as to 
need so much longer time than Paul to express his sentiments ; 
— Paul is not aware of any claim Amicus may have to farther 
indulgence, and therefore hopes he will have no objection to 
Paul's appearing next week. 



Saturday, Aug. 18, 1821. 

LETTER VIII. 

OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM ANSWERED. 

f • Go teach ( disciple ) all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii. 19. 
In my former number on Baptism, to commence the discus- 
sion, I introduced only two arguments, in favour of our prac- 
tice, drawn from the Command of Christ and the Practice of 
the Apostles. On the same subject I have many more argu- 
ments to urge. But as Amicus has in the mean time appeared 
with many plausible objections to our scheme : before proceeding 
farther, I will answer him. After reading and studying your 



16 

most admired writers on this subject, I must pronounce this Es- 
say of Amicus, the most able and ingenious I have ever read : 
and if it were possible to support your doctrines, you could hard- 
ly commit your cause to safer hands. But, until mysticism tri- 
umphs over Scripture, history, and common sense, all attempts 
to justify your doctrine will be vain. 

John the Baptist, (of whom you make so much) we acknow- 
ledge to have been the morning star of the Gospel dispensation. 
He came to announce the speedy rising of the Sun of Righte- 
ousness. As that Sun arose, he gradually disappeared. As 
Christ '*. increased, he decreased." Baptism with water was 
in those days, the necessary badge of discipleship. The Jews 
had used it with their Gentile proselytes ; John applied it to his 
converts : and when Jesus began to " make disciples," he took 
the same course, as we are expressly told John iii. 22, 26. and 
iv. 1. (i After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
land of Judea : and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was 
with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold* 
the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. When, therefore, 
the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made 
and baptized more disciples than John." These passages prove 
that if he did not baptize himself, he ordered it to be done. The 
baptism which he used, however, was John's baptism, adminis- 
tered not in the name of the Trinity, nor in the name of Jesus, 
but " in the name of Him who was to come." John instead of be- 
ing grieved that Jesus " baptized and all men came unto him,' 5 
(iii. 26.) rejoiced, as does the friend 'of the bridegroom when 
he succeeds in procuring for the bridegroom, numerous guests. 
" From the whole tenor of the New Testament," says Ami- 
cus, " two kinds of baptism are distinctly understood." He 
might have said four: as, 1. The Baptism of Water. 2. The 
Baptism of the Spirit, or with the ordinary influences of grace ; 
a baptism given to every saint since the fall of Adam. 3. The 
Baptism of Blood, or Suffering, mentioned Matt. xx. 22. " But 
Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye 
able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized 
with the baptism that I am baptized with ? They said unto him 
we are able. Mark x. 38. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know 
not what ye ask : can ye drink of the cup that I drink of and 
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? Luke 
xii. 50. But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; how am 
I straightened till it be accomplished." — a baptism peculiar to 
Christ and the Martyrs : and, 4. The Baptism of Miraculous 
Gifts, commonly called in Scripture, the Baptism " of the Holy 
Ghost" or " fire;" a Baptism never bestowed before nor since 



the days of the Apostles. It is this last to which John the Bap- 
tist particularly alludes, when he says, " 1 indeed baptize with 
water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.* 9 
For John's own disciples, we have no reason to doubt, were 
some of them already sincere converts, of course had been bap- 
tized with the common baptism of the spirit ; as well as thou- 
sands of the Old Testament saints. The Apostles were undoubt- 
edly Christians, when our Lord, after his resurrection, alluding 
to this very passage, says, " John indeed baptized you with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." Acts i. 5. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost here 
manifestly refers to the Miraculous Gifts, bestowed on and after 
the day of Pentecost. When, therefore, John says, " He shall 
baptize you with the Holy Ghost," he no more sets aside the 
baptism of water, than the baptism of Mood, or the common 
baptism of the spirit. He simply means to say " Christ shall 
bestow upon his followers an Extraordinary Influence of the Holy 
Spirit." He did not mean to say, that Christ should not baptize 
with water, because we have seen already that he did baptize 
with water. John iii. 52. 

But, after all, what if John had said in so many words, that 
Christ, " would not baptize with water," (though he has said 
no such thing,) I know not what support it could bring to 
the cause of Amicus, since he has set aside the testimony of 
the inspired Jlpostles who certainly had more light than John. 
For if " the least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than 
John the Baptist," as our Lord affirms, I cannot see why he, 
an individual, should be always infallibly right, and they a 
large body instructed from our Lord's own lips, and gifted 
moreover with Inspiration, should be unanimously wrong! 
Indeed, I do think Amicus has cut himself off from any 
farther quotations from the preachers or writers of the New 
Testament. He has decided that they are fallible on the 
plainest points ! He has taught us that they were fallible 
through the greater part if not the whole of their lives ; and if 
he holds that they became infallible before they died, he is bound 
to show before quoting any text, that this text was written after^ 
they passed the line of fallibility ! — Of this hereafter. But 
whether fallible or infallible, John gives no testimony against, 
while all the Apostles and early preachers and early Chris- 
tians, give their testimony for Water Baptism. 

I now proceed to notice what he says on the subject of our 
Lord's commission or command, Matt, xxviii. 19. " Go dis- 
ciple all nations baptizing them," &c. Amicus denies that here 
is any precept for water baptism. Why ? because I myself 
have admitted, the command was £( not express," I acknow- 



ledge my *words are capable of such "construction, but such a 
thought was never in my heart. I did, and do still consider the 
command sufficiently express. You must acknowledge " it 
was calculated to lead," as it did lead the Apostles to water bap- 
tism. I spoke of your admissions, not mine. But says Amicus, 
again, " the word Water is not used." Such an objection, if I 
did not think you serious in offering it, I would pronounce ridi- 
culous ! Suppose our Lord had said, " Go dip all nations" — 
" immerse all nations" — " sprinkle all nations" — would not 
common sense have led every person to the idea of water? But 
the word water is not mentioned. Now the word " Baptize/* 
in its literal and ordinary sense, as certainly implies water, as 
either of the expressions abovementioned. It is only in a figu- 
rative and uncommon sense, tbatit signifies to purify or cleanse. 
If you say the word is sometimes used for spiritual cleansing, 
so is tbe word " circumcision," more frequently than baptism, 
used for the renewal of the heart. But if under the Old Testa- 
ment, the command had been given U go circumcise all nations," 
would not all have understood it, as referring to an outward 
ceremony ? 

Again; our Lord says, in the same connexion, i( Go teach all 
nations, go preach the gospel to every creature." Suppose I 
should turn mystic, and object tbat neither writing nor talking 
were here commanded, but that the gospel should be preached 
by silence? would not a child laugh at me, and tell me preach- 
ing implied talking and writing, &c. So we say of the word 
baptize. Again ; if you will admit nothing but what is express- 
ed in so many letters, here is nothing said about the spirit : of 
course Christ did not command to baptize with the spirit ! 

The question then is what was the usual and acknowledged 
sense of the word at the time it was used ? In its literal sense, it 
always referred to water. This all the Lexicons in the world 
will testify ; this Amicus himself acknowledges, when he says, 
it not only refers to water, but to a particular mode of using 
water, to wit, immersion. This then is its literal sense. Now, 
says " an eminent christian and scholar of the seventeenth cen- 
tury," a " college made christian" too, in his Apology, p. 446. 
" It is a maxim yielded to by all, that we ought not to go from 
the literal signification of a text, unless some urgent necessity 
forces us thereunto." Now I ask, what "urgent necessity" 
forces us here from the literal sense ? Is the word " baptize" 
generally used in scripture in a figurative sense? This you will 
not pretend. The word in its various forms occurs in the New 
Testament about 80 times, in more than 60 of which you will 
not deny, if you look at the passages by a Concorc ance, that it 
signifies the use or application of water. Again; did not tbe 



Apostles understand it in a literal sense ? If not, why did they all, 
without exception practise it in a literal sense ? Did not the -primi- 
tive christians understand it in a literal sense ? and the whole 
christian world, till " 170 years ago ?" 

Amicus is pleased to say, that, "in the latter period of the 
church, the use of water decreased." But where is his proof? 
He may be challenged to show from scripture or from the histo- 
ry of the first fifteen centuries, that a single individual was ever 
admitted to the visible christian church without water baptism. If 
the- Apostles had inculcated, in their latter years, the abolition 
of this ordinance, or had even omitted its celebration, among 
a people so disposed in all things to follow the example of the 
Apostles, we should certainly have heard of some churches or 
individuals objecting to this ceremony. That Peter ever chang- 
ed his mind on this subject, you bring only one text to prove ; 
when he says that the baptism which saves " is not the putting 
away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience." 
1 Pet. iii. 31. But this very text implies that the word baptism 
refers to water, and that the outward rite was then in use ; and 
only declares (what we all believe) that water baptism will not 
save without spiritual baptism. 

That Paul changed his opinion you have as little ground to 
assert from 1 Cor. i. 14. His thanking God that he baptized 
only a few of the Corinthians does not prove that they were not 
baptized by others — by Timothy, Titus, Silas and his other 
companions. Peter might have said, he did not baptize Corne- 
lius and his household, , for he only "commanded them to be 
baptized" by his attendants. Acts. x. 43. 

In fact, Paul gives us three reasons for his conduct. Not 
that water Baptism was wrong, but, 1. They made it an occa- 
sion of party Spirit, (see v. 12.) 2. That he might be free from 
the suspicion of wishing to make a party : " lest any should say 
I had baptized in my own name" (15) or to make Paulites. 
3. Because he had a more important business, for which he was 
better qualified than his companions, while they were equally- 
qualified to baptize. i6 Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach 
the gospel," i. e. I view this as my principal duty. This is the 
simple meaning of a passage of which you make so much. Take 
away these two passages, and you have not a sentence to show 
that these Apostles ever changed their earliest views. We know 
moreover, that Paul and Peter left their respective regions in 
the use of this ordinance. We know also, that the other Apos- 
tles and Evangelists left every country where they laboured, 
and where they died, in the use of water baptism. 

In short, it does not appear there was ever a doubt on the 
minds of the Apostles, Evangelists, or Preachers, or Christians 



80 

for more than a thousand years, until George Fox arose and 
discovered that all were wrong! — Now, Amicus thinks me very 
presumptuous for saying, "our Lord knew his disciples would 
understand him to mean water baptism 5" — as if I would doubt 
his omniscience ! 

Again ; ihat our Lord intended literal baptism \ji this com- 
mand, is evident from the words which precede and follow the 
word " baptize." " Go teach all nations baptizing them," &c. 
It is well known to all acquainted with the original Greek, that 
the word here rendered " teach," literally signifies " make dis- 
ciples." When therefore, our Lord commanded, " Go make 
disciples baptizing them," he in the language of the day, des- 
cribed the well known and universal mode of making proselytes. 
As if he had said, " You well know what is meant by making 
disciples, and the manner of baptizing them ; I therefore without 
any unnecessary explanation, tell you, Go and do as the Jews 
are in the habit of doing, as John the Baptist did, and as I my- 
self have done, ( John iv. 1.) baptize all who shall profess their 
repentance and faith, and thus admit them to the number of my 
disciples." If our Lord had intended to set aside the old, or 
point out some new way, he would not have used language that 
exactly described the old and common mode of making disciples. 
The only novelty or change he intended to introduce, he was 
careful distinctly to express, as he did in regard to the Name in 
which they were to baptize. Had he said nothing on this sub- 
ject, they would have used the old form. We have reason to 
think, he changed the language, just so far as he wished to 
change the thing, and no farther. And as he changed nothing 
but the name in wbich they were to baptize, we have no right to 
suppose he intended they should make any alterations in the mode 
of baptizing. 

Once more, that our Lord, in this command, and the similar 
one, Mark xvi. 16. intended water baptism, is evident from his 
omitting to make it essential to Salvation. " He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall 
be damned." Now I ask why is Baptism omitted in the latter 
clause. If our Lord meant the Baptism of the Spirit, he might 
have inserted it with perfect safety, since it is certain he that is 
not baptized with the spirit will be lost. But if he was speak- 
ing of the baptism of water, the reason of its omission is evident ; 
— though highly important as a profession and evidence of faith* 
it is not essential to salvation. Rom. x. 9, 11. 

On the whole, therefore, from the literal meaning of the term; 
« — from its usual meaning in the New Testament; — from the 
definition of all Lexicographers ; — from the interpretation and 
practice of the Apostles ; — from the words connected with it by 



SI 

m? Lord; — from its being a baptism not essential to salvation ; 
— and, from the unanimous understanding of the whole christian 
church for more than a thousand years, we infer, there is no rea- 
son to doubt that our Lord intended to enjoin Water Baptism. 

PAUL. 



Seventh-day ^Zth Mo. 25,1821. 

LETTER X. 

In my former Essay on the subject of Baptism, the great lead- 
ing features ©f the two administrations were marked out; first, 
that of John the forerunner, " the baptism of Water ;" and se- 
condly, that of Christ the great antitype in whom all the shadowy- 
Ceremonies of former dispensations had their accomplishment, 
'•the Baptism of the Holy Spirit." In tracing the outlines of the 
two dispensations i endeavoured to shew that John's baptism 
was typical — elementary — carnal — Christ's spiritual and divine 
— John's the weak unessential baptism of water — Christ's the 
powerful essential baptism of the Holy Spirit, without which no 
man can ever see the kingdom of God. Now if this point be 
established, and it lias not been denied, I consider the strongest 
position gained, and, as the successful commander, who having 
captured the main body of his enemy's army, has nothing to do 
but pick up the stragglers, my only business is to answer the 
little arguments founded in verbal criticism or palpable misun- 
derstanding. 

The reaojers of " Paul's" last address to us must have ob- 
served that this ground remains untouched by him — his plea for 
carnal ordinances is not founded on their conformity to the na- 
ture of the Gospel dispensation — this he well knew he could not 
-sustain— he knows they are one in nature with the " meats and 
drinks and divers washings" of the Mosaic code, and equally 
impotent in their operation with the legal purifications of the 
law, and until he can shew that "the law of a carnal Com- 
mandment" is to supercede " the power of an endless life," all 
attempts to justify his doctrine upon Evangelical principles 
will be in vain. 

"As " Paul" in his last address to us has expressed an opin- 
ion, that because " Amicus" admits the fallibility of the Apos- 
tles he has consequently "cut himself off from any further quota- 
tions from the preachers or writers of the New Testament" — I 
think it proper before I attempt to answer his objections that I 
should endeavour to remove this difficulty. " Amicus" would 
be very sorry to lose the advantage of Scripture testimony in 
11 



82 

the cause he has espoused, hecause on that testimony he princi- 
pally relies for the confirm ation of every opinion he has advanc- 
ed or shall advance in the present discussion. 

Now I freely confess that I never had an idea that the Apos- 
tles were infallible, and I give " Paul" the credit of being the 
first writer who ever offered such a sentiment for my considera- 
tion. I always thought that they were men of like passions with 
us, according to their own testimony, Acts xiv. 15. I had no 
idea that like the Pope of Rome, they had ever pretended to be 
infallible. I remembered that when the Apostle Paul met Peter at 
Antioch he withstood him to the face because he was to be blam- 
ed — because he dissembled — because he walked not uprightly ac- 
cording to the truth of the Gospel — because he compelled the Gen- 
tiles to live as do the Jews — see Gal. ii. 11, 13, 14. — I remembered 
that the Apostles Paul and James, together with the Church at 
Jerusalem, twenty seven years after Christ had abolished the 
ceremonial ordinances of Moses, were found the abettors of 
those ceremonies : see Acts xxi. 26. — I remembered that Paul 
and Barnabas, two of our Lord's Apostles had so sharp a con- 
tention at Antioch that they could no longer travel together in 
the ministry of the Gospel : See Acts. xv. 39. From all these 
recollections I had admitted the idea that the Apostles were fal- 
lible men — men of like passions with ourselves — having the 
same infirmities with their brethren — liable to the same preju- 
dices, and only infallible when under the immediate guidance and 
instruction of the Holy Spirit — Nevertheless I cannot understand 
why such an opinion must invalidate their writings — because I 
freely admit that they wrote under the immediate influence of 
Divine inspiration, which I acknowledge is perfectly infallible in 
all its operations. 

I will now advert to the arguments used by " Paul" to main- 
tain the expediency of perpetuating John's Baptism — for the ne- 
cessity of it he does not contend — he grants that it is not essen- 
tial to salvation — so that the whole sum of all his arguments to 
induce us to be sprinkled, amounts to no more than that we ought 
to submit to an unnecessary form. 

Now as water Baptism is confessedly nonessential in its nature, 
it should have been shewn that our Lord by some " express 
Command" enjoined it on his Church — this our opponent has 
failed to do and ever will fail to do. This great point he is forc- 
ed to rest upon the ground of conjecture ; the improbability of 
which I will now attempt to demonstrate. For this purpose T 
will quote the two corresponding passages of Matthew xxviii. 
18, 19. and Mark xvi. 15, .16, wherein they give some acccount 
of the last interview of our Lord with his disciples and the con- 
versation he then had with them. These passages eminently il- 



S3 

lustrate each other, and establish our doctrine beyond the reach 
of a doubt — Matthew says, " And Jesus came and spake unto 
them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations Baptizing them iti 
the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, 
'teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have command- 
ed you, and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the 
world." — Mark says " And he said unto them, Go ye into all 
the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall he saved ; but he that believeth liot 
shall be damned. " 

Now it is evident from these passages that the Baptism which 
Christ commanded was a Baptism absolutely essential to salva- 
tion — *' He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" — by con- 
necting belief and Baptism together and making Salvation to de- 
pend equally on the two, he plainly declares that this Baptism 
was the essential saving Baptism of the Holy Spirit — " Paul" in 
commenting on this passage has profanely attempted to wrest 
a plain Scripture text — to put asunder what God has joined — 
in the face of the strongest Scripture language he has declared 
that our Lord " omitted to make the Baptism here spoken of es- 
sential to Salvation." The text however stands firm, an unim- 
peachable Witness, whose evidence corresponds with the testi- 
mony of holy men in all ages — with the experience of every re- 
al Christian — that they and only they who believe and are Bap- 
tized with the Holy Spirit can be the heirs of Salvation. 

In answer to " Paul's" query " Why is the word Baptism 
omitted in the latter clause" of the 16th verse above quoted — 
i. e. " he that believeth not shall be damned" — I answer, for 
this very obvious reason, that as belief must precede Baptism by 
the Holy Spirit — so he that does not believe cannot be bap- 
tized by it, and consequently damnation follows upon unbelief 
alone. 

There is one circumstance which remains to be noticed, and 
which goes to prove that the Apostles never understood our Lord 
to intend that they should, by virtue of the aforesaid commis- 
sion, Baptize their converts with water. In all the cases of 
water Baptism that occurred afterwards there is not a single 
instance of any one being Baptized " in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Now if the Apostles 
had understood their Lord as modern Christians do, I cannot 
conceive how they dared to omit so important a part of the Ce- 
remony. This view of the case brings our opponents into a seri- 
ous dilemma — either the Apostles did not understand him to 
mean Water Baptism, or else they disobeyed the positive Com- 
mand, of their Lord. 



84 

It may be proper in this place to notice ii Faults*' criticism 
an the word " teach" mentioned in the text I have quoted — I 
confess I have been at some loss to understand how the meaning 
he would give it, can have any effect to strengthen his position, 
because I admit that men must become disciples in the school of 
Christ before they are prepared to receive Spiritual Baptism, 
Yet in order to shew that the word " teach" is correctly ren- 
dered in the present translation of the Bible I will just state, 
that the word which is rendered "teach" in the imperative mood, 
is in the original Greek *' JIatheteusate" from 'f Mathetuo" — in 
the latin "doceo" — to teach — to instruct — to inform. Both this 
verb and the noun '* Mathstes" (discipulus) are derived from 
the primitive verb " Manthano" in the latin " disco" " intelli- 
go" to learn, to acquire the knowledge of things, to be inform- 
ed of — to understand — to perceive, to know, " Paul" traces the 
verb " Matheteuo" no further than to the noun " Mathetes" 
ii disciple :" he ought to have gone a little further to the root of 
MathHes — to Manthano, and then he would have discovered that 
the translators of the Bible had rendered the word Maiheteusate, 
correctly " Go teach all nations" — so that all his verbal cri- 
ticism in this case seems intended only to veil the truth from 
the eye of his reader — to lead him from the plain path of Scrip- 
ture doctrine into the confused labyrinth of scholatic Divinity. 

I shall now notice some of " Paul's" assertions which I con- 
sider unsupported by Scripture testimony. First — He asserts 
that " as the Sun of Righteousness arose John the Baptist gra- 
dually disappeared". — If lie had said that as the gospel dispensa- 
tion arose the dispensation of carnal ordinances gradually disap- 
peared, he would have taken ground which he might have de- 
fended by Scripture — but as he speaks of the person of John he 
manifestly contradicts the plain text, for John the Baptist was 
sitddenly cut off by Herod, who threw him into prison and be- 
headed him before the Gospel dispensation was introduced, as 
we see Matt. xiv. 10. so that John's prediction John iii. 30. 
"He (Christ) must increase, but I must decrease," evidently 
refers to the two dispensations, the former administered by our 
Lord, the latter by his forerunner John the Baptist. The dis- 
pensation of the Spirit being that which was designed to rise in 
its own native splendor, and to eclipse the^comparatively weak 
and planetary^ light of that " morning Star of the Gospel dis- 
pensation," 

Secondly — " Paul" asserts that we " make much of John the 
Baptist" — with how much reason he asserts that we make much 
of him, I leave my readers to judge — I rather think that this 
charge lies with most reason against those who plead for carnal 
or u nances and preach up his watery Baptism as a binding obli- 
gation on the members of Christ. 



85 

Thirdly — He asserts contrary to the positive language of the 
Evangelist, that " when Jesus began to make disciples he appli- 
ed water Baptism to his converts" — to support this assertion he 
quotes John rii. 22, 26, and iv. 1. which only go to prove that 
our Lord's disciples administered Water Baptism : but he omit- 
ted the second verse of the fourth Chapter which proves express- 
ly that Christ took no part in the performance of this typical 
Ceremony. " Jesus himself Baptized not, but his disciples." 
And as soon as our Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard a 
false report " that Jesus made and Baptized more disciples than 
John," as if offended at the scandalous rumour that he was ad- 
ministering a carnal ordinance, he immediately left Judea the 
scene of water Baptism, and went into Galilee* John iv. 3. 

Fourthly — " Paul knowing the assertion he had made, that 
" Jesus applied water Baptism to his converts, was contrary to 
the positive language of the text, directly after tacitly admits 
the error of his own statement, by saying that " if Christ did 
not Baptize himself — he ordered it to be done — Here he not only 
admits that our Lord did not Baptize himself — But he makes a 
new assertion equally unsupported by the text — Where is his 
proof that " Christ ordered it to be done?" not in the Bible I 
am certain. Now as this position rests wholly on the ipse dixit 
evidence of my opponent, my only business is to deny it — The 
practice of the disciples in this case no more infers a Com- 
mand, than Peter's denial of his Lord or Judas's treason implies 
that they so acted in conformity with a divine injunction. 

Fifthly — " Paul" asserts that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit 
mentioned Acts i. 5. is the Baptism of miraculous Gifts — this 
is a kind of term quite novel — a Baptism of Gifts ! ! 1 confess 
myself at some loss to understand this language — it agrees with 
no idea of Baptism either literal or spiritual conveyed in the 
Sacred volume. That the Holy Spirit with which the Apostles 
and primitive Christians were Baptized conferred on them many 
miraculous Gifts is very evident, but this Baptism always pre- 
ceded the Gifts — they were Gifts proceeding from that divine 
power, which God by Spiritual Baptism had communicated to 
his Children — " Paul's" attempt to distinguish Baptism into 
four kinds is idle, and as I conceive irreverent — The Holy Scrip- 
tures mention but two kinds of Baptism, the Baptism of Water 
and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit — the effects of the latter 
were then, and always have been various — The Apostle beauti- 
fully exemplifies this truth in his 1st. Epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, Chap. xii. " Now there are diversities of Gifts, but the 
" same Spirit — and there are differences of administrations, but 
" the same Lord, and there are diversities of operations, but it 
*'< is the same God which worketh all in all — But the manifesta- 



86 

" tion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal, for to 
" one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom — to another 
" the word of knowledge by the same Spirit — to another faith by 
f the same Spirit — to another the gifts of healing by the same 
" Spirit — to another the working of miracles, to another prophe- 
" cy, to another discerning of Spirits, to another divers kinds of 
"tongues — to another the interpretation of tongues — but all these 
" worketh that one and the self same Spirit, " dividing to every 
" man severally as He will. For as the body is one and hath 
66 many members — and all the members of that one body being 
" many are one body, so also is Christ — for by one Spirit we 
" are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Jews or Gen- 
46 tiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to 
" drink into one Spirit." — Here the Apostle distinctly mentions 
the Gifts of the Spirit consequent on true Gospel Baptism, and 
though every subject of this Baptism does not receive all these 
Gifts as a consequent of being thus initiated into the Church of 
Christ, yet no true subject of this Spiritual Baptism is or ever 
will be without one or more of those Gifts mentioned by the 
Apostle. 

The whole of "Paul's" arguments are intended to prove that 
a Christian ought to be Baptized with two Baptisms contrary 
to the plain language of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. There 
is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in you all." — Now 
46 Paul" can as easily prove that a Christian should acknow- 
ledge two God's, have two Lords, hold two faiths, as that he 
should submit to two Baptisms. 

66 Amicus" entirely accords with that eminent Christian and 
scholar of the seventeenth Century, the divinely illuminated 
Robert Barclay (not a College made Christian, inasmuch as he 
became a Christian long after he left College) " that we ought 
not to go from the literal signification of a text unless some ur- 
gent necessity forces us thereunto ;" and sincerely do I wish 
that " Paul" would remember the maxim— if he did so, I cannot 
understand why he should be so zealous in contending for the 
administration of two Baptisms, whilst he acknowledges that 
one of them is unnecessary, and consequently he is not forced by 
any urgent necessity to depart from the literal meaning of the 
text, " one Lord, one faith, one Baptism." 

In my former Essay on the subject of Baptism I did say that 
in the latter periods of the Church when the Apostles had fully 
experienced the inefficacy of Water Baptism and the powerful na- 
ture of the Baptism of Christ, the use of water decreased — by the 
latter periods of the Church, was not meant the latter periods 
of the Church of Rome, but of the primitive Christian Church 
as described in the New Testament — I know very well that af- 



87 

tcr the days of the Apostles, when the civil and ecclesiastical 
powers were Mended together, when the Churlh through this 
unhallowed union became corrupt and lost her virgin beauty, 
then the use of carnal ordinances increased, mystery Babylon the 
mother of harlots bewitched her with her sorceries, and, if God 
in his mercy had not preserved a little remnant who could not 
bow in the synagogue of Satan, who could not worship the gor- 
geous but distorted image of Christianity which had been set 
up, who could not be satisfied with empty lifeless forms and typ- 
ical ceremonies, the Church would have become an utter deso- 
lation — but in divine goodness such a remnant was preserved 
through a long dark night of Apostacy, until the dawn of Refor- 
mation, until the true Church was distinctly seen " coming out 
of the wilderness leaning on the breast of her beloved ;" which 
that she may continue to do is the sincere prayer of, 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, September i, i82t. 

LETTER IX. 

OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM ANSWERED. 

< 4 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, 
and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you, 1 Corin- 
thians xi. 2." 

The principal object of my last number, was to show that 
the baptism enjoined in our Lord's Commission, (Mat. xxviii. 
19.) was a literal and not a figurative baptism. This object 
Amicus seems almost to have forgotten, and to have been so busy 
in pursuit of " stragglers," as to have missed the main army. 

There is such a difference of style and spirit, such a manifest 
want of candour and common justice in his last Number, that I 
can hardly think Amicus was himself when he wrote it. Every 
objection, however, worth answering, shall be noticed in due 
time. At present I shall only notice the two objections which 
he offers to my main argument ; the first is his most learned 
criticism on the word "Teach;" and the second, his misuse of 
Mark xvi. 16. 

Instead of quoting words which few can understand and few- 
er still can criticise, I will appeal to a plain English argument, 
drawn from Authors whose learning and critical abilities no 
modest man will question. The word for " teach" is rendered 
by Doddridge "proselyte;" by Pyle and Campbell, "con- 
vert;" by Guise, Scott and Henry, "disciple;" by Parkhurst, 
Wakefield and Gill, "make disciples;" all words of similar 



86 

import, denoting (as it is expressed in the Persic Version) 
« bring all nations to my religion and faith." And, if yon wish 
farther authority, your own Clarkson, (II. 318.) says, "the 
word * teach,' is an improper translation of the original Greek. 
The Greek word should have been rendered " make disciples or 
proselytes!" So much for his Greek! Let the public judge, who 
wished to " veil the truth from their eyes." My former argu- 
ment, therefore, remains in full forre. 

To illustrate Mark xvi. 16. a text which Amicus says I "pro- 
fanely attempt to wrest," I need add but few words. Suppose 
Amicus should say, " 'tie that believeth all the doctrines I teach, 
and publicly professeth them, is a good Friend and a good 
Christian." He would make this belief and profession an evi- 
dence of Friendism and Christianity; but would not exclude 
others who might not believe exactly as he does, or who might 
not as publicly profess the same, from being real Friends and 
Christians. But should he say, "He that believeth not, or 
doth not profess all the doctrines I teach, is neither a Friend 
nor a Christian;" he would make the thing required essential* 
In like manner, I might say "He who joins the Friends' Socie- 
ty, is sure to get rich ;" and this be a very different thing from 
saying, " none but those who join your Society will ever get 
rich." In the former I should simply recommend one means of 
getting rich, in the latter name what was essential to riches. 
Thus our Saviour, when he said, " He that believeth and is 
baptized, shall be saved," only pointed out means of Salvation. 
But when he said, " He that believeth not shall be damned," he 
made faith and faith alone essential. As the baptism therefore, 
of which he speaks, is only a means of grace, and not essential 
to salvation, we infer he intended Water Baptism. 

Having confirmed my First, I now proceed to confirm my Se- 
cond Argument, drawn from Apostolic Practice ; after which, 
I will answer a few of your objections, and conclude the discus- 
sion with farther proof of the propriety of Water Baptism. 
• That the Apostles practised water baptism, is too plain to be 
denied. Amicus, quibbling on the mode of baptism, says there 
are no instances of their " applying water to their converts," 
but " several instances of their applying their converts to the 
water." Whether the twelve Apostles spent the whole day of 
Pentecost in " applying" their three thousand converts " to the 
water," or a small part of it in, " applying water" to their con- 
rerts is of little moment; the fact, however, that the whole 
body of the Apostles at this time baptized with water, was never 
contradicted. The fact that the Samaritans, " both men and 
women were baptized," when "as yet the Holy Ghost had fallen 
*>n none of them," proves that they were baptized with ivater., 



$9 

{Acts viii. 12. 16.) The cases of the Eunuch, (Acts viii. 38.) 
of Cornelius, (x. 47.) of Saul, (ix. 18.) of Lydia and her house- 
hold, and the Jailor and his household, (Acts xvi. 15. 38.) with 
the rebaptism of John's disciples, (xix. 5.) are all equally in 
point ; and show the construction which the Apostles put upon 
our Lord's command — the difference they made between his and 
John's baptism — their opinion of the propriety of water baptism 
under the gospel dispensation, and their belief that it was not 
superseded by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

I have before shown that there is no evidence in Scripture or 
in history, that they ever changed their views or practice. And 
I again defy Amicus, to show that a single Apostle ever changed 
his mind — or that a single individual was added to the church, in 
the days of the Jlpostles, without water baptism. Here then are 
the twelve Apostles sent forth to preach the gospel, found 
churches and deliver ordinances, all practising Water Baptism. 
This example of the inspired Apostles has a powerful influence 
on the minds of Christians in general, but with Amicus, and 
you, it passes for nought ! 

Says Amicus, they were fallible, they " offered sacrifices," 
iS circumcised their converts," " compelled them to live as do 
the Jews," "kept the Nazarite's vow, &c." and therefore their 
conduct is no " infallible criterion" of truth. This bold attack 
upon the Apostles is as unjustifiable as it is presumptuous. Let 
us examine this point, and it will be found that all these charge* 
are unfounded. I can hardly think Amicus intended it, but here 
is a serious blow at inspiration ! That the Apostles, as men were 
imperfect and liable, like all christians, to occasional inconsist- 
encies of conduct, all must admit; but to suppose for a moment 
that they were wrong in their habitual conduct, or fallible as 
Teachers of Doctrines, and inculcators of Ordinances, is to 
loose the sheet anchor of our confidence, and set us adrift on an 
ocean of uncertainty. If they habitually erred in one particu- 
lar, why not in a thousand — why not in all ? It is well remarked 
by a writer on Inspiration, "a partial inspiration is, to all in- 
tents and purposes, no inspiration at all. For mankind would 
be as much embarrassed to know what was inspired, and what; 
was not, as to collect a religion for themselves-. The consequence 
of which would be, that we are left just where we were, and 
that God put himself to a great expense of miracles to effect noth- 
ing at all I" The Apostles left to teach error ! You must forgive 
me, but really I cannot but view this as another proof of the dels- 
tical tendency of your sentiments. They taught no error either 
in their writings, their preaching or practice, i. c. taking 
these as & whole, looking not so much at herniated particulars, as 
at their general tenor. 

IP, 



9Q 

That the Apostles should not at once think of carrying the 
gospel to the Gentiles, is not wonderful when we consider the 
many millions of their own brethren who were strangers to 
Christ — when we consider also our Lord's previous charge, " go 
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samar- 
itans enter ye not," and after his resurrection, " begin at Jeru- 
salem." (Luke xxiv. 47.) Their error, (if indeed they were 
in an error, and did not act just as our Lord wished them to 
act,) was soon and forever corrected. There is not any truth 
of which they have left a more unequivocal testimony, on thfc 
whole, than the propriety of preaching the Gospel to the Gen- 
tiles. 

"They practised circumcision," says Amicus. Not so. 
However, this rite may have been observed by some of the Jew- 
ish converts, it was never enjoined by the Apostles, nor recom- 
mended to any part of the church. There is no evidence that 
they were in any error on this subject. 

As to the " debate held by the Apostles, whether all the church 
should submit to circumcision," of which he speaks, no such 
thing appears. At least, whatever some uninspired converts 
might have thought, among the inspired Apostles, there appears 
to have been but one opinion, and that unfavourable to circumci- 
si6n. (Let the reader refer to Acts xv.) Some of the Jewish 
converts taught " except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be sav- 
ed," — with whom Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissention 
and disputation." In the Council, Peter says, why put ye such 
a "yoke upon their necks?" James, "my sentence is that ye 
trouble them not," and the declaration of the whole, " we gave 
no such commandme7it," Acts xv. 1, 2, 10, 19, 24. 

Such were the views and decisions of the inspired Apostles. 
Where then was their debate, their ignorance, their mistake, their 
indulgence of the people in "carnal ordinances!" As to common 
Christians, they were no more inspired then, than christians are 
now. 

Soon after this council, (Actsxvi. 3.) with the above decree of 
the Apostles, in his hand, " Paul circumcised Timothy." 
"Why ? because he thought it binding on the church ? Not at all ; 
but as Luke says, " because of the Jews." He acted as any 
missionary among the Jews at the present day might act, if he 
thought it would ingratiate him with that blinded people. This 
occasional act, is certainly a very different thing from preaching 
everywhere, "Repent and be circumcised every one of you," 
enjoining the rite, as he did baptism. So far from inculcating, 
lie every where condemns and stigmatizes it as 6 concision' and 
not circumcision. Gal. v. 3. Phil. lii. 2. 

The vow, on account of which Paul "shaved his head at 



91 

Cenchrea," (Acts xviii. 18.) might have been the Nazarite's* 
vow, but the Scripture does not say so. Vows are proper un- 
der every dispensation. His offering sacrifices at Jerusalem, 
at the request of James, (Acts xxi. 26.) any reader may see was 
contrary to his own judgment and the judgment of James, and 
a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices. (i As touching the 
Gentiles,'' says James, " we have written and concluded that 
they observe no such thing." (25.) Let it be remembered too, 
that this was a single, and the only instance of sacrificing dur- 
ing Paul's whole christian life ; which his general opposition to 
such ceremonies, and his whole Epistle to the Hebrews as much 
outweigh, as a mountain outweighs a grain of sand. 

But, says Amicus, " the Apostles compelled their converts to 
live as do the Jews," referring to Gal. ii. 11, 12. The Apos- 
tles as a body never did ; no individual, not even Peter ever did 
habitually. (Read the passage.) " Before that certain came from 
James, he did eat with the gentiles, but when they were 
come, he withdrew, fearing them which were of the circumci- 
sion." For this, Paul rebuked him before all, saying why " com- 
pellestthou, &c." This is Amicus's proof that the 6i Apostles com- 
pelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews !" That Peter disap- 
proved his own weakness, is evident from his making no reply, 
and afterwards commending Paul and his Epistles, (2 Pet. iii. 
15.) he calls him his "beloved brother Paul," and ranks his 
writings with " the other Scriptures." 

Now, says Amicus, " if the Apostles were so zealous for tho, 
law of Moses, can we wonder they should occasionally be found 
in the use of John's baptism ?" So zealous ! Where is the proof 
that they ever were zealous for any abrogated rite ? I deny that 
they ever commanded, or approved, or generally practised any 
Jewish rite, whether circumcision, sacrifices, or Naxarite's vows. 
If they did, v where is the evidence? There is none. But against 
all these things there is an overwhelming weight of Apostolic 
testimony. But there is evidence in abundance that they un- 
derstood water baptism as obligatory on the church, and practis- 
ed it not " occasionally," but universally : while there is no evi- 
dence that they ever changed their views or practice ; but proof 
the most satisfactory, that they left this ordinance in full force 
to their converts and successors. I have been thus particular 
in answering your objections because they were plausible and 
imposing — because this is your Fort — because, I think, the more 
the general conduct of the Apostles is scrutinized, the more it 
will be found to harmonize with their Preaching and their Writ- 
ings : and thus confirm our faith, that both in doctrines and in 
ordinances they were directed by the Spirit of God. 

Having thus proved negatively that Apostolic testimony is a 



92 

safe rule in ordinances, as well as doctrines ; I will now adduce 
a few considerations to prove the same point positively. And 1. 
The declaration prefixed to this Essay proves that the Apostle in- 
tended his ordinances to he observed, as well as his doctrines 
believed. Else why should he "praise" the Corinthians for 
" keeping" them. To the Thessalonians he says the same 
thing. '"' Brethren stand fast, and hold the traditions whjch ye 
have been taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess. 
ii. 15.) By "ordinances" " and traditions," are here intend- 
ed all regulations and observances of an external kind. The 
passage is too plain to need further comment. 

2. The peculiarity of their work required inspiration in ordi- 
nances as well as doctrines. Many of the Prophets had only a 
message to deliver, a prophecy to utter, and then disappear. 
But the Apostles, like Moses, had to establish a new economy ; 
like him, therefore, it was necessary they should see " a pattern 
in the Mount," and know the place of every pin of the Taber- 
nacle they were to erect. In other words, it was necessary they 
should have divine direction in modelling the external as well as 
internal order of the church. It was necessary they should 
know every change to be made in the government, ordinances, 
and external regulations of Christ's visible kingdom. Their 
testimony for Christian ordinances is as good as the testimony 
of Moses for Jewish ordinances. Of the inspiration of Moses 
you have no doubt, why of the Jlpostles ? 

3. The Promise of Christ secured their infallibility, in this, 
as well as other respects. ** When the Spirit of Truth is come, 
he shall guide you into all truth," (John xvi. 13.) — " He shall 
teach vou all things, and bring all things to your recollection 
whatsoever I have said unto you." (xiv. 26.) And again, 
« whatsoever ye shall bind, or loose on earth, shall be bound or 
loosed in heaven:" (Matt, xviii. 18.), These promises were 
intended as a security both to them and to us of their infallibility. 
But this promise covers Ordinances as well as Doctrines; for 
it is said, "whatsoever ye shall bind, &c." If therefore, their 
Doctrines are obligatory, so are their Ordinances ; — if their 
Writings were inspired, so was their Preaching. There is no 
promise that they should be infallible in one and not in the oth- 
er. You must therefore either reject the testimony of the Apos- 
tles on every subject, or admit their testimony for Water Bap-f 
tism. 

Lastly; on the subject of Ordinances, the Apostles either 
were inspired, or they were not. If not, their testimony against 
the Mosaic rites is worth nothing — if they were inspired in re- 
jecting these they were also in establishing Water Baptism. For 
they as expressly commanded and practised the latter, as they 



93 



rejected and condemned the former. Thus your doctrine can- 
not he supported without denying the inspiration of the Apostles, 
and accusing our Lord of equivocation. 

Having now answered the leading objections of Amicus, I 
will in my next adduce some new arguments, 

PAUL. 



Srventh-day % Qth Mo. 3, 1821. 

LETTER XII. 

In i€ Paul's" last attempt to reply to my arguments, against 
the use of Water Baptism in the christian Church, I hardly 
know which most to admire, the strength of his assertions, or 
the weakness of his arguments, his inconsistencies with himself, 
or with the plain doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. As he has in- 
volved himself in difficulty, from which the sacred penmen cannot 
extricate him, as he has attempted to make a plain path obscure 
by strewing it with sophisms and various matters wholly irre- 
levant to the subject, before I enter on the business of answering 
his particular positions, I will again briefly revert to the broad 
grounds on which alone this carnal ordinance must stand or fall. 
In order to prevent confusion, and all unnecessary repetition, 
these grounds should constantly be kept in view, as all sound 
argument in the present discussion, must always refer to them. 

The first is — " The conformity of carnal ordinances to the 
nature of the Gospel dispensation." 

Secondly. — " Some express command of Christ, binding his 
followers to observe them." 

Jlnd Lastly. — " The practice of the Apostles." 

1. On the first great point, there seems to be no dispute be- 
tween us. That Water Baptism is a carnal ordinance is cer- 
tain. " Paul" does not deny it. That its nature is legal and 
not evangelical every Christian must admit ; being elementary it 
has no application to the soul 9 — being figurative or typical it 
ranks with the types and figures of the Mosaic law. It was 
instituted by John the Baptist before the introduction of the 
Gospel dispensation, and in the radiance of Gospel light, it 
must fade away with other weak and shadowy ceremonies of the 
Jewish economy — " Christ must increase 9 but John must de- 
crease.' 99 

2. On the second point, " Some express command of our 
Lord, binding his followers to observe it." I have not only 
shewn that there is no such command, but I have clearly proved, 
that the texts adduced by my opponent to substantiate his posi 



94 

tioia, are when interpreted by each other, the most insurmount- 
able obstacle in his way. " Paul's" method of getting over 
this difficulty, is not by a resort to Scripture authority, but to 
one of the most singular sophisms that has ever attracted my 
attention — affording no evidence but that his own cause is weak 
and languishing. As he has used a kind of syllogism for his 
purpose, I will return his civility, by stating one of a different 
nature — one not founded in sarcasm, the refuge of disappointed 
hope, but on plain Scripture testimony, and the concessions of 
my opponent. 

The Baptism which Christ commanded, Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. 
and Mark. xvi. 15, 16, is essential to salvation. 

But Water Baptism is not essential to salvation. 

Ergo. The Baptism which Christ commanded is not Water 
Baptism. 

The major proposition is clearly proved by the text, " He 
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." 

The minor " Paul" grants. He expressly acknowledges that 
Water Baptism is not essential to salvation. 

The Conclusion is irresistible. " The Baptism Christ com- 
manded is not Water Baptism." It is the Baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, Christ's own essential Baptism, without which none can 
inherit the kingdom of Heaven. 

3. On the third point, I admitted that the Apostles in the ear- 
ly periods of the Christian church, practised Water Baptism as 
well as Circumcision, legal vows and sacrifices — but I denied 
that their practice could sanction Water Baptism, any more than 
it could sanction Jewish ordinances, or that it authorized the use 
of Water in the present day, any further than it authorized the 
use of circumcision and other legal ceremonies in the Christian 
church. I demonstrated by several plain texts of Scripture, that 
Water Baptism was to decrease agreeably to the prediction of 
John the Baptist, and that it did decrease in the time of the Apos- 
tles. Referring to two of these texts, " Paul" says, " take 
away these two passages and you have not a sentence to shew 
that these Apostles ever changed their earliest views." Now I 
have no doubt that it would be very convenient to my opponent 
to take away these two passages — but, as on the one hand, I 
have no desire to " take away from the words of the Book," so 
on the other, I do not see how any " lover of truth" — any be- 
liever in " the plenary inspiration of the sacred volume," can 
consistently wish them removed. But whether we wish them 
removed or not, there they stand, and there they are likely to 
stand an evidence of the truth of my position — an evidence 
which no sophistry can weaken, no art can invalidate. 

Now, although in a former Essay I gave chapter and verse 



95 

for the passages alluded to, yet in order more perfectly to illus- 
trate the subject I will again refer to them, state a few argu- 
ments, and attempt to demonstrate what I consider indubitable 
— that Water Baptism was on the wane and rapidly declining in 
the time of the Jlpostles. I refer to these texts, in the belief that 
they are sufficiently conclusive on the subject, but if necessary, 
I can adduce other strong evidence to substantiate this view. 

The first is in 1 Cor. i. 11, &c. where the Apostle says, " It 
" hath been declared unto me, of you my brethren, by them 
<< which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions 
(i among you ; now this I say that every one of you saith 
M I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of 
" Christ : Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you, or 
" were you baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God I bap- 
« tized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say 
" I had baptized in my own name ; and I baptized also the 
" household of Stephanas, besides I know not whether I bap- 
" tized any other, for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach 
" the gospel." 

On this passage, I will observe that the Apostle's reason for 
thanking God that he had baptized so few of them, " lest any 
should say he had baptized in his own name," is only valid up- 
on the supposition that Christ sent him not to baptize with water. 
Upon any other hypothesis, this would have been no reason at 
all for his delinquency. What ! Can the abuse of any Gospel 
ordinance be a reason for its disuse ? If so, what religious insti- 
tution may we not lay aside ? People may go to a place of wor- 
ship to gratify their pride, to be gazed at by their fellow crea- 
tures, to bethought religious; these are among many of the 
palpable abuses of the institution of public worship : What 
then ! Should we therefore justify the man that would thank God 
he had been seldom at a religious meeting ? Again, the public 
ministry may be made an engine of ambition, a tool of state, a 
means of aggrandizement; it may be assumed for the sake of 
" filthy lucre :" What then ! shall we discourage a public min- 
istry because it is used for sinister purposes, because some men 
become Shepherds for the sake of the Wool ? Certainly not ! 
We should rectify the abuse, but not abolish the use. These 
very Corinthians made the Gospel ministry " an occasion of 
party," as is evident from 1 Cor. ii. 5 : " for while one saith I 
am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal ?" 
M Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos but ministers by whom 
ye believed as the Lord gave to every man?" " I have planted, 
Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." Now let us sup- 
pose that the Apostle, because of this abuse of his ministry, had 
said, *« I thank God I preached only to a few of you, lest any 



96 

of you should say I preach in my own name," or "to maW 
Paulites." Would this reason be deemed a valid one ? I am 
persuaded that none of my readers will answer in the affirma- 
tive ! How then can we justify a similar reason in the case of 
Water Baptism, especially if it were commanded by the same 
authority and at the same time with the ministry of the Gospel ? 
We cannot possibly do it. The Apostle knew very well that if 
the great Head of the Church had expressly commanded him to 
go and baptize all nations in water, he would not be excused for 
disobedience to a divine command, because his converts made 
his practice under such authority " an occasion of party," and 
therefore, he was careful to give a much better reason for de- 
clining the dipping system, " Christ sent me not to baptize but 
to preach the Gospel." 

My opponent's reasoning on this passage is wholly inadmis- 
sible, because he takes for granted what is not authorized by the 
text. The Apostle does not say of the ministry, " I view this 
as my principal business." I consider Water Baptism a looser 
kind of service, which I may either do or leave undone just as 
circumstances may dictate. He says positively, " Christ sent 
me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel," and on no other 
ground could he be justified for omitting the one or practising 
the other. 

Now when it is considered, that this Epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans was written at least four years after we have any scripture 
account that the Apostle used Water Baptism, I think it must 
be evident that "his earliest views" were "changed," or, he 
would not have said in positive terms, " I thank God I baptiz- 
ed none of you but Crispus and Gaius." 

The second case I adduced to prove the decline of Water 
Baptism in the primitive church, is found in 1 Pet. iii. 21 : 
where the Apostle speaking of the saving Baptism, describes 
its effects in very lucid terms, first negatively, " not the putting 
away the filth of the flesh ;" then positively, " but the answer 
of a good conscience toward God." Elementary Baptism has 
necessarily no other effect than to purify the Body ; it is per- 
fectly useless as a religious act, under the christian dispensa- 
tion, which is the communication of an eternal efficient principle 
by which sin is mortified, the soul purified and prepared for ce- 
lestial enjoyment. 

Now when we consider, that Peter wrote this Epistle about 
Eighteen years after we have any evidence that he had baptized 
with water, I think it furnishes satisfactory testimony of a 
change in his " earliest views," that his mind was prepared, by 
divine illumination, to let the weak watery baptism of John give 
place to the powerful sanctifying Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 



97 



" Paul" attempts to prove that our Lord meant to perpetuate 
Mm 9 * Baptism— that he only changed the name— that he intend- 
ed his Apostles should make disciples, just as John had done, 
by dipping them in water— that -the only change or novelty he 
meant to introduce, he was careful to express, as he did in re- 
gard to the nam e in which they were to baptize. " .Now the 
fallacy of these assertions will appear from the following con- 
siderations ; first, the Apostles never afterwards baptized with 
water "m the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost," consequently they did not understand him to perpetu- 
ate Water Baptism in another name or with a new form oj words. 
Secondly. In order to fulfil the ministry and baptism he com- 
manded, it was necessary they should be endued with new pow- 
er -Tarry ye at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power Jrom 
on hierh, Luke xxiv. 49. for John truly baptized with water, but 
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and ye shall receive 
power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." Acts i. 5. 
8 Now the power to baptize with water, to pronounce any form 
of words over their converts, they already possessed ; and it our 
Lord had intended to continue the typical baptism ot John, he 
needed not to command them to wait for further powers— the 
natural faculties of the unregenerate Christian may perform a 
carnal baptism, but the qualification to preach the pure gospel o, 
Christ, to baptize with his Baptism, can only be derived irom 
the power of the Holy Ghost coming on his ministers. 

I think the unprejudiced reader will now admit that the three 
ffreat pillars which have been used to support Water Baptism are 
completely removed— I do not expect to convince any man against 
his will, nor against his interest; but as I defend, wbat I con- 
sider the doctrines of the Gospel, I shall very cheerfully rest the 
case with those, who in simplicity and sincerity, are seeking the 
truth, and wish to be governed by the principles laid down by 
our blessed Lord and his faithful Apostles, i will now briefly 
notice some of " Paul's" remarks in his last address to us, and 
point to some of his inconsistencies and self-contradictions :-— 
: First. He says that " the principle object of his previous 
number, was to' shew, that the baptism enjoined m our Lords 
commission, Matt, xxviii. 19, was a literal and not a figurative 
baptism," he also says, that " Amicus seems entirely to have 
forgotten this object /" My readers will however do me the jus- 
tice to acknowledge that so far from forgetting this object, "Am- 
icus" completely defeated it, by proving from that text, and the 
corresponding passage, Mark xvi. 15, 16. that it could not be 
taken literally, because it was an essential baptism that Christ 
commanded, which Water Baptism is not. Now I cannot un- 
derstand why I should be bound to accept the word Baptism If 
13 



m 

lerally, even if I bad not proved by tbe words of the text, that it 
could not be so understood. " Paul" acknowledges that I have 
about twenty scripture examples for using it in a spiritual sense, 
an: I know I have many more; but perhaps he has forgotten, 
that in the fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul — in the Epistle 
of James — the two Epistles of Peter — the three of John — that of 
Jude, and in the Book of Revelations, it is never used in a literal 
sense, except in two or three instances where the Apostles are 
speaking against Water Baptism. 

His attempt to justify the sprinkling system, borders closely 
on the ludicrous ! he thinks the three thousand persons baptized 
on the day of Pentecost, were baptized with water, and, as the 
dipping of so many would have been very difficult, therefore, the 
Apostles S2)rinkled them. It would be well however, first to 
prove that they were baptized with water at all ; it should not 
be forgotten that this was the day in which the prediction of our 
Lord was so remarkably fulfilled, "ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost," Acts i. 5. The whole chapter gives strong 
evidence that the baptism of the three thousand was the spiritual 
baptism of the new dispensation, and not the weak baptism of 
John the forerunner. 

In considering my proofs of the fallibility of the Apostles, 
" Paul" seems much confused — he advances and retreats alter- 
nately with rapid steps. First, he considers " Amicus" " bold" 
and " presumptuous," in admitting the imperfection of some 
parts of their practice, then he admits "they were imperfect and 
liable like all other christians to occasional inconsistencies of con- 
duct," he then enquires, "if they erred in one particular 9 why 
not in all ?" — then he grants that they were erroneous in " insu- 
lated particulars," but taught no errors either in their writings, 
preaching or practice, taken as a whole," then tacitly admits 
that " they were in error, and did not act just as our Lord wish- 
ed them to act, but were soon and forever corrected." He ad- 
mits that " Paul circumcised Timothy," and was guilty of a 
**weak compliance with Jewish prejudices;" that he was once 
engaged in Jewish " sacrifices" — that " Peter disapproved of his 
own weakness" in "compelling the Gentiles to live as do the 
Jews," in dissembling and walking not uprightly according to 
the truth of the Gospel, and yet he demands "where was their 
ignorance, their mistake, their indulgence of the people in carnal 
ordinances." I do not know what " Paul's friends may think 
of this method of defending their doctrines, nor can I see how 
" Amicus" can be charged with holding " sentiments of a deisti- 
cal tendency," unless " Paul" should be adjudged to bear a part 
of this odious burden, because he has fully granted every posi- 
tion of " Amicus" on the subject of Apostolic fa llibility. 



But this is not ail that he has granted, in his unwonted readi- 
ness to make concessions, he has carried his carnal scheme one 
step further than I had ever seen it extended ; he thinks " any 
missionary among the Jews at the present day might circumcise 
his converts if he thought it would ingratiate him with that 
blinded people !" If these be the sentiments of modern mission- 
aries I think we need not he surprized to hear of the revival of 
Jewish practices, to see the " hand-writing of ordinances" 
taken down from the " cross" where Christ " nailed" it ; t see 
the knife of circumcision again introduced, notwithstanding the 
Apostle has expressly asserted, that "if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing," Gal. v. 2. 

Now as " Paul" has admitted the fallibility of the Apostles, 
in "insulated particulars," — that they were imperfect, and liahle 
like all other christians, to occasional inconsistencies of conduct," 
— suhject to "weak compliances with Jewish prejudices," that 
sometimes, " they did not act just as our Lord wished them," it 
must be evident that he has completely overturned all his own 
laboured conclusions on their supposed infallibility. 

Having removed all the plausible objections to the doctrines I 
advocate; having pointed to the singular spectacle of a man 
aiding in defeating himself, I shall for the present close this sub- 
ject, cheerfully committing my cause into the hands of the can- 
did reader; with the information, that it is my intention in my 
next Essay, to introduce another subject for his consideration 
and judgment. 

AMICUS. 

Saturday, September is, 1821. 

LETTER X. 

ON BAPTISM. 

It was the express command of Jesus Christ f* Go teach all 
jaations baptizing them." Those who say that the word bap- 
tism is here used in an uncommon and extraordinary sense, are 
bound in the first place, to prove their bold assertion; and, in 
the second place, to prove the inspired Apostles mistaken in in- 
terpreting their Master's mind and will. From the second 
chapter of Acts we learn that shortly after receiving their com- 
mission, the Apostles " were all with one accord in one place," 
(1st verse) when "they were all filed with the Holy Ghost, and 
began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." 4. Among other things which Peter "standing 
up with the eleven,," spoke, he said, "Repent and be baptized 



100 

every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost." " Then they that gladly received 
the word were baptized, and the same day there were added un- 
to them about 3000 souls." (37, 41.) Upon this subject we re- 
mark. 1. The whole body of the Apostles was here assembled, 
— they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, — all spake " as the 
Spirit gave them utterance. Of course what they spoke was 
the mind of the Spirit, or the doctrine of God himself. The 
truth of what they spoke cannot be questioned without question- 
ing the veracity of the spirit of Truth. 2. They commanded 
the people to be baptized — not with the Holy Ghost, for this is 
no man's duty, — and *• the gift of the Holy Ghost" is spoken of 
as a blessing which they should receive in consequence of bap- 
tism ; — but with water as these same Apostles afterwards ex- 
plain their own meaning in the cases of the Centurion, Eunuch 
and others. The Eunuch going home from this feast took it for 
granted Christians must be baptized, and therefore said to 
Philip " see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? 
and they went down both into the water, and he baptized him." 
(Acts viii. 38.) Eight years after Pentecost, the Apostle Peter 
by baptism understood something different from receiving the 
Holy Ghost. "Who can forbid water that these should not be 
baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord : 
(Acts x. 47.) " Four years" before he wrote to the Corinthians, 
i. e. twenty three years after Pentecost, according to Amicus's 
own acknowledgment, the Apostle Paul " used water baptism." 
And we shall soon see he used it at a much later period. Here 
then is the Unanimous testimony of 12 Inspired Apostles against 
the opinions of George Fox and his followers ! Now whether 
Baptism be a " carnal ordinance," or one perfectly " conforma- 
ble to the nature of the present dispensation," is a question 
which I leave Amicus to discuss with our Lord and his Apostles. 
For my part, J am not in the habit of holding a candle to the 
Sun, or wishing to direct the decisi- ns of Infinite Wisdom. 

The major proposition of his very formal sylogism, to wit, that 
"the baptism commanded by Christ is essential to salvation," 
was fully refuted in my last. His conclusion falls of course. 

The Apostle Paul was sent both to baptize and preach. The 
former, after lie found it an occasion of party spirit, he perform- 
ed by the hands of others, as our Lord did, John iv. 1, 2. and 
as Peter did, Acts x. 47. but he could preach only in his own 
person. And this is the reason, if Amicus wishes one, why he 
did not " thank God he had preached the gospel only to a few," 
while he thanks God he had left baptism to his companions. 

I am charged by Amicus with first denying and then — admit- 



101 

ting the " fallibility" of the Apostles. The charge lies against 
his own abuse of the English language. I have never in a sin- 
gle instance admitted the fallibility of the Apostles. They must 
have been perfectly infallible, or not inspired. " Fallibility," 
according to Walker, signifies " liableness to be deceived," — 
of course relates solely to errors m judgment, and has nothing 
to do with practice. Now I appeal to the public, if it is not the 
manifest object of my last essay to prove that the Apostles nev- 
er erred in judgment, never decided wrong. It was admitted 
that, through the weakness of the flesh, they occasionally acted 
contrary to their judgment; but that their judgment was at all 
times right, and they never " deceived" in their views of any 
ordinance or doctrine. My doctrine was that though frail as 
men, they were infallible as teachers. — 

In confirmation of what I have said, in former essays of the 
Command of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostles I now 
add' — 

Thirdly. The Apostles did not consider the baptism ivhich they 
administered as John's baptism, but as an institution of Christ. 
You tell us they practised " John's Baptism," — but without the 
least authority ; yea in the very face of scripture. In Acts xix. 
1, 5, we are told that " Paul having passed through the upper 
" coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he 
" said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be- 
" lieved ? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard 
" whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, 
" Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, unto John's 
" baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap- 
" tism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should 
" believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ 
"Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the 
" name of the Lord Jesus." Here then were a number of John's 
disciples rebaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. An unques- 
tionable proof that the Apostles considered Christ's baptism as 
different from that of John. You may say, if you please, "they 
were deceived, and misunderstood their commission." But you 
will pardon me, if I doubt your infallibility sooner than theirs. 

Fourthly. Our Lord makes wa+er baptism essential to member- 
ship in the visible church; John iii. 5 : " Except a man be born 
of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." What can the phrase "born of water," mean but bap- 
tism ? The phrase "kingdom of God," or "kingdom of hea- 
ven," (for they are one and the same) is in Scripture used in 
two senses, for the visible, and for the invisible church ; or for 
the body of apparent and of real saints. That it sometimes 
means the invisible church, all will admit; but that it often 



102 

means also the visible church, none will doubt who read the pa^- 
rabies of the "Tares," the "Net," the "Ten Virgins," 
(Matt. xiii. 24, 47 and xxv. 1.) The " kingdom of heaven" is 
in these passages spoken of as containing bad as well as good, 
hypocrites as well as saints, which cannot be true of the invisible 
church. Now to enter the visible church, or the society of pro- 
fessing christians, it is necessary to be " born of water," or to 
be baptised; to enter the church i7ivisible, or the society of real 
saints, something more is necessary, even to be " born of the 
spirit," or be renewed in heart. The Jews used to say of Gen- 
tile proselytes after baptism, that they were " born again," and 
to this our Saviour probably alludes. Here then is proof not 
only of the propriety, but of the absolute necessity of water bap- 
tism to church membership. This looks something like making 
it a "badge of diseipleship !" 

Fifthly. The Jpostles speak of it as an important means of 
salvation. As our Lord places it next to faith, Mark xvi. 16 : 
and next to regeneration in the passage before quoted, so the 
Apostles place it next to essential things. Thus Acts ii. 38 : 
" Repent and be baptized." They required it as & profession of 
religion and a means of grace. Eph. v. 26 : "Christ loved the 
church and gave himself for it, that he might cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word." Here the " washing with wa- 
ter," or baptism, is spoken of as one means, along with the word 
of cleansing the church. This ordinance as well as preaching, 
christians know to be a means of grace and sanctification. 

The same sentiment is conveyed, Tit. iii. 5 : "He saved us 
by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." The former, (to adopt your style) is the baptism of 
water, the latter of the spirit. Abundant quotations might be 
made from the early Fathers, showing that the " washing of re- 
generation" was a phrase in common use with the early Chris- 
tians to signify baptism. Not that they supposed this outward 
ceremony changed the heart, but typified that change. Just as 
circumcision is called " the covenant," (Gen. xvii.) because it 
was a sign of the covenant ; and the cup in the Lord's Supper 
is called the " New Testament," because it is a symbol and seal 
of that Testament. Thus Baptism is here called the " washing 
of regeneration," because it is a symbol or sign of regeneration. 
The Apostle here makes it a means of salvation ; "He hath 
saved us by the washing, &c." 

Again ; Heb. x. 22 : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in 
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 
conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Observe, 
here is something external as well as internal, something m the 
body as well as the spirit, recommended to all who could ap- 



105 

proach God acceptably. Or, to speak in your language, here 
is the baptism with water as well as the Spirit required. Note 
also, that this " washing with water," is recommended in that 
same Epistle, and in the very next chapter to that in which all 
Jewish ordinances, and " divers washings, are said to be done 
away; (ix. 10») a plain proof that Christian baptism is not to 
be numbered with the " divers washings" of the Jews. Note 
also, that sprinkling and washing are here spoken of as synoni- 
mous terms ; and also, that this Epistle was written within a 
year or two of the Apostle's death. So that his views were not 
yet changed, 

I know no other way in which these arguments can be answer- 
ed but by saying, this water, this washing, &c. means spiritual 
waters, spiritual washing. But, not to say that spiritual cleans- 
ing is spoken of besides in these very passages, it is easy to see 
nothing would satisfy such an objector ! For if our Lord had said 
" Go baptize with water," — to such an objector it would not 
have been an " express command," as he would still say our 
Lord meant " spiritual water !" The language is as plain as 
any reasonable man can ask. 

Sixthly. The Apostle John, in an Epistle written after all 
the other Apostles were dead, speaks of Baptism as one of the three 
standing witnesses for Christ, 1 John v. 8. Having spoken of a 
Trinity of witnesses in Heaven, "the Father, the Word and the 
Holy Ghost," he adds, " and there are three that bear witness in 
earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood," to this great truth 
** that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his 
Son." The Spirit bears witness by the Scriptures which he 
inspired, by the hearts which he renews ; — the water of Baptism 
witnesses the necessity and the certainty of sanctification ; — and 
the Blood, or the Lord's Supper, the certainty and the mode of 
Justification, We are told in the 6tii verse that Jesus " came by 
water and by blood," that is, with a view to cleanse his church 
from pollution and atone for her sins. These two great objects of 
his coming are clearly certified to all the world by Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. While these two ordinances continue to be 
celebrated, Christ will never want two faithful witnesses to the 
two leading parts of his salvation, — Justification and Sanctifi- 
cation. — Now if all the world were Friends, two of these wit- 
Messes, if not the third would be banished from the world ! 

Lastly ; that the Apostles never changed either their views 
or practice on this subject, but left the whole church in the prac- 
tice of this ordinance, is evident from the Testimony of the early 
Fathers,^ — As we have no particular dispute on the subject of In- 
fant Baptism, I regret that the passages most in point will neces- 
sarily bring this into view* It will he admitted by all that Iu- 



104 

font baptism must have been water baptism. If therefore the 
former was universal, so was the latter. I have room for only a 
few passages. The " Apostolic Constitutions" say " Baptize 
your infants and instruct them in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." Origen, "Infants also are by the usage of the 
church baptized. " Infants are baptized for the remission of 
sins." " The church received a document or order from the Apos- 
tles to give baptism to infants." Fidus, a bishop in Africa, 
wrote to Cyprian inquiring 6t whether it were right to baptize 
children befor eight days old ?" Cyprian proposed the question 
in a Council of sixty-six Bishops, and afterwards wrote, 
" not a single bishop agreed with you, — the spiritual circumci- 
sion is not to be restricted by that which is according to the 
flesh, — but an infant may be baptized immediately after its 
birth," &c. Augustine, speaking of the above letter of Cy- 
prian, says it was " No new decree, but the established faith of 
the church," And again, he "never heard of any Christian 
whether Catholic or Sectary that denied Infants were to be bap- 
tized for the remission of sins," — that the Palagians are unable 
to contravene the authority of the whole church, derived beyond 
doubt from our Lord and his apostles." Once more, Celestius 
and Pelagius, two men of great talents, learning and acquaint- 
ance with the churches in Asia, Africa and Europe, were ar- 
raigned for heresy, and charged with denying original sin, the 
corruption of Infants, &c. and were much puzzled by this Ques- 
tion, "If infants are not polluted, why are they by the usage 
of the universal church, baptized ?" Some accused them of de- 
nying infant baptism. They repelled the charge. Celestius 
acknowledged that " infants were to be baptized according to 
the rule of the universal church" Pelagius said that " men 
slandered Him as though he denied the sacrament of baptism to 
infants," and affirms that " he never heard of any, not even 
the most impious heretics, that could say such a thing of infants." 
— Such quotations might be multiplied indefinitely ; but these 
are sufficient to prove the early and universal prevalence of wat- 
er baptism. 

On this subject I have yet many tilings to say; but as the dis- 
cussion has already been protracted : as Amicus seems inclined 
to cease ; as we are now even in the number of essays, and as 
we have many other subjects to discuss if Amicus enters on a 
new subject, I shall in my next proceed to consider and confirm 
the authority of the Lord's Supper. 

PAUL; 



105 

Seventh-day , nth Mo. 12, taax 

LETTER XII. 

At the close of my last Essay on the subject of Water Bap- 
tism, I expressed my intention of introducing to my reader, at 
this time, another object for his consideration and judgment. I 
had no other reason for changing the subject than a fear lest his 
attention might be wearied by a protracted discussion of it. As 
Respondent, however, it will be expected that I should answer 
all my opponent's objections — and as "Paul" has again appear- 
ed against the doctrines I defend, I should hardly be excused 
were I to leave unanswered any argument, however weak or 
inapplicable to the points at issu '. I shall therefore be compell- 
ed to follow him through his various windings, and to attempt 
the removal of any obstruction to the clear discovery of Gospel 
truth. 

It is truly curious to observe the various maneuvers of my 
opponent to establish the use of outward ordinances (the pecu- 
liar characteristics of the Mosaic law) in the Christian churchy 
to see how closely he adheres to the typical shadowy ceremonies 
of preceding dispensations, how 7 anxiously he labours to engraft 
a Carnal Rite '* on the Gospel stock." If in this attempt he 
were forced to depend on the doctrines of the New Testament 
for support, his case would be desperate ; he has therefore lied 
to Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, Henry, Parkhurst, and 
Gill for succour ! — authors of no more authority with me than the 
writers of the Church of Rome are with my opponent. In his last 
communication he flies to the "Apostolic constitutions" as they 
are falsely called — the spurious production of some nameless 
writer, a work unknown to Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, or any other writer of the three first 
centuries. Dr. Lardner thinks they were composed in the be- 
ginning of the fifth century : " the author," says the Doctor, 
" was probably a Bishop of a proud and haughty spirit, who 
was fond of Church power, and loved pomp and ceremony in 
religious worship." This may explain the reason why my op- 
ponent so much relies on their authority. Like a drowning man 
he catches at every straw that floats in Ids way ; but in this case 
his dependence is delusive — they have not sufficient buoyancy to 
sustain their own weight, and the probability is they and the 
cause of my opponent must sink together. 

But why any believer ** in the plenary inspiration of the sa^ 
cred volume," should resort to inferior aid for support, is some- 
what mysterious ! Why desert " the only and supreme stand- 
ard of religious truth t" Has " Paul's" faith in this standard 
deserted him ? Can 6i Cyprian," " Augustine," and " a Coun- 
14 



106 

cil of Bishops," add any weight to the testimony of the inspir- 
ed penmen ? Can a Candle" add any light ** to the Sun ?" Can 
the dark, contentious, contradictory authors of an Apostatized 
church, elucidate or " direct the decisions of Infinite Wisdom V 9 

I have read, with some attention, the history of the Church 
from the days of the Apostles down to the present time. 1 have 
considered the various opinions of ecclesiastical writers as de- 
livered by the best historians — and I will venture to assert, that 
such a mass of confusion and contradiction as their opinions ex- 
hibit, is not to be found in any department of literature — the 
confusion of tongues at Babel could not possibly exceed it — 
there are not two of the Fathers, as they are termed, who are of 
the same opinions. Division, contention and bloodshed mark 
their footsteps — their writings are much better calculated to 
make infidels than christians ; a man should either be much pre- 
judiced in their favour, or well established in the principles of 
vital piety, who ventures to read them. A more melancholy pic- 
ture of poor human nature, can hardly be produced, than that 
which is exhibited in the members of the church for the first 
thirteen centuries succeeding the Apostolic age. Under this 
view of the subject it is no matter of wonder that enlightened 
christians should place little reliance on their judgment or au- 
thority ; — one plain Scripture text outweighs the authority of 
them all. 

I will now advert to the particular positions of my opponent 
as exhibited in Ids last address to us. 

He tells us that " those who say, that the word Baptism, in 
our Lord's Commission, is there used in an uncommon or extra- 
ordinary sense, are bound in the first place, to prove their bold 
assertion." ^Now I would ask, who has ever said so ?- 1 did not 
say " the word Baptism is here used in an uncommon or extraor- 
dinary sense. The word Baptism in the new Testament is very 
commonly used to imply the purifying operation of the Holy 
Spirit; this is indeed its most important meaning, it is used in 
this sense more than thirty times — any other meaning of the 
word is of no more value in comparison of this, than the shadow 
of a man is in comparison of the man : — this was certainly the 
opinion of the Apostles in the latter periods of the Apostolic 
age, else, how can we account for the fact, that in none of their 
Epistles they ever recommended Water Baptism, never spoke 
one word in its favour, never exhorted their brethren to use it, 
or promote it in any way whatever — but when in two or three 
instances they alluded to it, spoke in a way calculated to discour- 
age them from the use of it, as my former Essays prove indubit- 
ably. Now I will ask one question, if the Apostles had believed 
that tvater Baptism was an ordinance of Christ, commanded by 



lor 

Mm to be observed in his Church, why did they in their Epis- 
tles to the Churches never press the use of it — never exhort their 
brethren to remember the command? there is no other Christian 
duty that they did not excite them to the performance of, over 
and over again : — the answer is plain, they neither considered 
it a duty, nor of any importance in the Church, and therefore 
when they spoke of it they spoke to its disparagement. 

Again, my opponent tells us that we " are bound to prove 
that the Apostles were mistaken in interpreting their master's 
mind and will" respecting this carnal ordinance. Now I am 
very certain that they never were mistaken on this point — that 
they never understood him to command Water Baptism. I 
have proved by the text that he did not do so — that the Baptism 
he commanded was an essential baptism, which Water Baptism 
is not, according to " Paul's" own confession — and to prove 
that the Apostles did not understand their Lord to command 
Water Baptism in a new name, or with a new form of words, 1 
have shewn that they never baptized their converts afterwards 
?* in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost," which they must have done if they had so understood 
him. In answer to the first point, he has brought no Scripture 
evidence to disprove it, and to the second he has made no reply 
at all — he has from motives of policy avoided it, well knowing 
that the Scriptures could afford him no assistance. Now he 
ought to have been very particular on these points, as on them 
hang the great question " whether Water Baptism is an institu- 
tion of Christ or not." 

In the next place my opponent tells us, that on the day of 
Pentecost, the great day of Spiritual Baptism — the day in which 
our Lord's prediction was so remarkably fulfilled, Acts i. 5. 
" For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost" — that on this day, '• when the Apostles 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with 
other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance, Peter, standing 
up with the eleven spoke and said, Repent and be baptized every 
one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Gift 
of the Holy Ghost — then they that gladly received the word were 
baptized, and the same day there was added unto them about 
three thousand souls." From all this " Paul" infers that be- 
cause it "is no man's duty (as he says) to command any one to 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost," therefore, they were baptized 
with water. 

On this subject I will observe that " Paul's" logic in the case 
is not very logical — because, his whole conclusion hangs upon 
this assumption "that it is no man's duty to command any one 
to be baptized with the Holy Ghost" — but as he has given us no 



ios 

ground for this opinion, I shall deny his position. I can con- 
ceive no reason why it is not as much the duty of a Gospel min- 
ister, one who is filled too wit the Holy Spirit, to command his 
hearers to he baptized with the Holy Ghost as it is to command 
them to repent : — Repentance is as much the gif of God, as 
Spiritual Baptism is — hoth are equally out of the power of man 
unassisted hy divine grace, and therefore they stand upon pre- 
cisely the same ground. 

But there is one expression in this exhortation of the Apostle 
Peter that irrefutably proves he meant the Baptism of the Holy 
Spirit — " Repent and be baptized every one of you eor the re- 
mission or sins." Now I can hardly suppose that there is any 
Christian in the present day who can seriously believe that re- 
mission of sins is obtained by Water Baptism — it would be little 
short of blasphemy to assert it — my opponent, however, dare 
not take this ground : — Remission of sins is essential to salva- 
tion — which Water Baptism is not, as he has already granted. 
The fair conclusion is that the Baptism Peter commanded is not 
the Baptism of Water. 

There is another circumstance that gives strong additional 
evidence that the baptism of the three thousand was not Water 
Baptism — This great multitude were in Jerusalem at the time 
of their baptism, and there was no stream of Water within sev- 
eral miles of the city sufficiently deep to immerse them — there- 
fore (unless indeed they were Sprinkled ! ! !) they were not bap- 
tized with water. The idea that they underwent a sprinkling 
is too ludicrous to need a serious refutation — sprinkling is not 
mentioned by any author, until one hundred and fifty years after 
this period, when the Church was reduced to the most humiliat- 
ing depravity. 

The next assertion of my opponent that is entitled to notice, 
is where he contradicts the positive language of the Apostle, 
" Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," 1 
Cor. i. 17. His argument on this point is any thing but rational 
— he says "the Apostle after he found it an occasion of party spi- 
rit, performed it by the hands of others." — Now this assertion is 
not only unsupported by the least testimony, and therefore un- 
worthy of the least regard — but if it w ere true would show 7 the 
Apostle 1 to be a very incompetent judge of human nature — be- 
cause to baptize them by proxy would not remove the difficulty- 
it is a maxim that " what the principal does by the agency of 
another he does himself," — and consequently the temptation of 
these weak Corinthians to say M I am of Paul" would not be 
removed ! 

" Paul's" attempt to extricate himself from the awkward sa- 
nation in which he is involved on the subject of Apostolic Infalli- 



109 

bility is better calculated to call forth compassion for the writer 
than commendation for his ingenuity — his last Essay has left 
the Apostles charged with a much more exceptionable kind of 
fallibility than Amicus ever imputed to them. « Paul" first de- 
clares that he never m a single instance admitted their fallibili- 
ty !" that " they must have been perfectly infallible" — " he ap- 
peals to the public if it is not the manifest object of his last Es- 
say to prove they never erred in judgment." — After this appeal 
to 'the public (who I think will not find much difficulty to decide 
in the case) he now admits that "through the weakness of the 
flesh they occasionally acted contrary to their judg?nent." — Now if 
I have any just idea of the nature of human actions, that is a 
far more culpable species of fallibility which acts contrary to the 
judgment than that which produces an erroneous action in con- 
formity with the judgment ! The latter involves no moral re- 
sponsibility, at all — the former does. — If they taught others by 
example to act contrary to their judgment they could not be 
very "infallible teachers." "Paul" defends their judgment 
at toe expense of their integrity. 

66 Paul" has set the excellent and venerable Apostles of our 
blessed Lord in so unfavourable a light that I think it necessary 
by repeating my former sentiments to vindicate their character 
— " Amicus's" views as expressed in his former Essays, were* 
that as they had been educated in the forms of an exterior wor- 
ship, and as through their whole Jives they had been accustom- 
ed to the use of carnal ordinances, they did not suddenly per- 
ceive their inconsistency with the spiritual nature of the new 
Covenant dispensation — but that as they advanced in religious 
experience they gradually discovered their impotency and the 
powerful effects of the Holy Spirit — that thus they w r ere pre- 
pared not only to lay them aside, but to hold up a testimony ta 
their weakness and inefficiency. I have never impeached their 
integrity. 

The next point my opponent attempts to prove is that Water 
Baptism is not John's Baptism ; his inconsistency in this case with 
the uniform testimony of the Scriptures is very remarkable — k 
John himself refutes him : " I indeed have baptized you with 
Water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Mark i. 
8. Now if we were to admit that Water Baptism were a bap- 
tism of Christ — then Christ would have two distinct baptisms* 
contrary to the express language of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 4. 5. 
"There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in oie 
hope of your calling- — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God 
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you 
all." Now as I observed in a former Essay, " Paul" can as 
easily prove that to the Christian there are two Gods, two Lords* 



110 

two faiths, as he can prove that we ought to submit to two bap- 
tisms. 

" Paul' 5 next endeavours to prove from the conversation of 
our Lord with Nicodemus that the kingdom of God spoken of in 
the text means nothing more than the visible Church — in this he 
not only contradicts the plain meaning of the passage, hut op- 
poses all the writers on the subject that I have ever met with — 
" Except a man he born again, he cannot seethe kingdom of 
God." — now I suppose that any unregenerate man who has good 
eyes, can see the visible Church, The idea that water baptism 
is a " badge" of church membership is one of "Paul's" curious 
notions which has neither Scripture nor reason to support it — a 
6i Badge" is some distinguishing mark, visible to the eye, and 
affixed to the object to be designated — but Water Baptism is ad- 
ministered but once in a man's life — it makes no change in the 
shape of his body, and he cannot wear it about him as a mark 
of distinction ! The New Testament writers have never given 
us one word on the subject of its Badgeship. 

In the next place he asserts that •« the Apostles speak of Water 
Baptism as an important means of Salvation." As this asser- 
tion depends for its proof on texts which mean to convey no such 
idea, some of which I have proved in this and a former Essay to 
be applicable exclusively to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I 
need not in this place pursue this branch of the subject further, 
than to say, that / deny Water Baptism to be in any degree a means 
of Salvation, — as a religious act it is perfectly useless. His 
whole argument on this point is beneath criticism — to say that 
6i the Spirit and Water and Blood agree in one," and that this 
Water is elementary Water is so contradictory to common sense 
and reason, that I wonder my opponent should venture to expose 
such a sentiment. See 1. John v. 8. 

It is a very important question in the present discussion 
" Whether Water Baptism be conformable to the nature of the 
Gospel dispensation," because we cannot suppose our Lord 
would command the observance of any Rite which is inconsistent 
with the nature of his own administration. Paul says, he " is 
willing to leave that question to be discussed by * Amicus' with 
our Lord and his Apostles." I am very glad that my opponent 
is at length willing to submit to Apostolic judgment. Let us 
hear then what the Apostle says of Water washings and carnal 
ordinances. This subject he handles with great perspicuity in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; from which I will quote two short 
passages for the settlement of "this point. 

" Then verily theirs/ Covenant had also ordinances of divine 
" service, and a worldly sanctuary, &c. which was a figure for 
"the time then present in which were offered both gifts and sac- 



Ill 

"rifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as 
" pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in meats and 
s * drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed on 
" them until the time of reformation." Here he describes the 
nature of the ordinances appertaining to the first covenant. In 
the same Epistle, quoting the prophecy of Jeremiah, he describes 
the nature of the second covenant or Gospel dispensation in re- 
markably clear terms — "For this is the covenant that I will 
** make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord 
« — I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their 
" hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
" people." — Now," says the Apostle to the Galatians, " after 
" that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how 
" turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye 
" desire again to be in bondage — are ye so foolish — having be- 
" gun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the "jlesh." 
Heb. viii. ix. Gal. iii. iv. — I cannot suppose it necessary to 
make any comment on these passages — they not only point out 
the Covenant to which carnal ordinances belong — but they 
clearly discover the nature of the glorious dispensation under 
which we now live. 

It will be seen by what has been said in the fore part of this" 
Essay that in doctrinal points, I place very little confidence on 
the opinions of those called the " early Fathers." They were 
miserably divided in sentiment — without the aid of divine in- 
spiration it is impossible to discover the truth in the heteroge- 
neous medley of their doctrines. Even in the second century 
they greatly corrupted the simplicity of the Christian religion 
by mixing with its doctrines the dark opinions of the Egyptian, 
Grecian and oriental Philosophy. — " Mosheim," speaking of 
the state of the church at this time says " In this century many 
"unnecessary Rites and Ceremonies were added to. the Chris- 
tian worship. These changes while they destroyed the beau- 
" tiful simplicity of the Gospel were naturally pleasing to the 
" gross multitude who are more delighted with the pomp and 
" splendour of external institutions than with the native charms 
" of rational and solid piety — Both Jews and Heathens were ac- 
" customed to avast variety of pompous and magnificent Cer- 
"einonies in their religious service. And as they considered 
" these rites an essential part of religion, it was but natural that 
"they should behold with indifference and even with contempt 
" the simplicity of the Christian worship, which was dest itute of 
" those idle ceremonies that rendered their service so specious 
" and striking : To remove then in some measure this prejudice 
"against Christianity the Bishops thought it necessary to in- 
" crease the number of rites and ceremonies and by this means to 



IIS 

*< render the publick worship more striking to the outward sen- 
** ses." — Thus we see that even in this early period the Pastors 
of the Church abandoned the plain doctrines of Christ and his 
Apostles — and a cloud of gross darkness overspread the world, 
the baneful influence of which is still extensively felt in the per- 
petuation of vain lifeless forms and shadowy ceremonies, leading 
the attention of the people from inward vital piety to the pomp- 
ous but ineffectual institutions of abrogated laws, or of an apos- 
tatized age. As to Infant Baptism it rests on the sandy foun- 
dation of human tradition without one word of Scripture to prop 
the useless fabrick. 

AMICUS. 



i Saturday, Sept. 29, i3ai. 

LETTER XI. 

ON BAPTISM. 

Though I am not aware of any rightful claim which Amicus 
may have to write more numbers on this, or any other subject, 
than myself, I should be very willing for ought that appears in 
his last Essay, to leave the four numbers I have written to 
stand against his Jive. But there are two or three objections 
advanced in former Essays and renewed in this, which ought 
perhaps to be answered more at large. After advancing a few 
more ideas in answer to these, I shall leave this subject with 
you and the public, with full consent that your friend should 
write as frequently and as voluminously as he please. His ar- 
guments are evidentlv exhausted, and no judicious person will 
measure the strength of an argument by the number of words. 
His last is the desperate effort of a dying man. Goaded and in- 
furiated by the command of Christ, the practice of the Apostles, 
the unequivocal language of the whole New Testament, follow- 
ed by the testimony of the Fathers, he has nothing to do but 
madly "kick against the pricks." 

In his desperation, he not only denies that the Apostles prac- 
tised water baptism on the day of Pentecost ; and that baptism 
commonly in Scripture, signifies an outward rite ; but he denies 
that Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, Henry, Parkhurst and 
Gill, are of any authority as critics, or the Fathers as witnesses 
to a plain fact ! Yea, more than this, he labours to destroy or 
nullify the church of Christ for 1300 years !! As he foresees the 
testimony of the early Fathers will not only on this, but many 
future subjects, be a severe thorn in his side, he makes a despe- 
rate effort to set the whole aside at once. He says they were 






113 

"miserably divided in sentiment." If so, it will be easy for 
him to show they were divided on water baptism. Let him try 
it. I challenge him to produce one Father, within the first four 
centuries, who was of a different opinion from those I have quot- 
ed. He says, " no tw.o were of the same opinion." In my last 
I quoted more than seventy, all agreeing in water baptism, and 
I could easily quote as many more. He calls the church in her 
first and purest ages " an apostatized church," says that within 
" one hundred and fifty years" after Christ, she was reduced to 
a state of " humiliating depravity." Reader, Christian, can 
you suppress your indignation ! This was the church, and these 
the leaders that faced the ten Imperial Persecutions — that laid 
down their lives by hundreds of thousands for the gospel of 
Christ — that without a sword or carnal weapon, by mere dint of 
piety, patience and perseverance, swept their enemies from the 
Roman empire, and conquered the then known world ! In short, 
these were the Martyrs so often referred to, whose " blood was 
the seed of the church." Now if the success of the Apostles is 
any proof of their piety, and the truth of their cause, the success 
of the Fathers and Christians of the first four centuries, (later 
than which I have not quoted) is a proof they were no " aposta- 
tized church." The first preachers of the gospel, after the Apos- 
tles, were not generally learned, but it is cruel to doubt they 
were pious men. While therefore we do not receive them as au- 
thority in their expositions of doctrine, we have perfect confidence 
in them as honest witnesses of fact. The " Apostolic Constitu- 
tions," it is generally supposed, were written at the close of the 
Second, or in the commencement of the Third century, and have 
been received as authority by the greatest men. Grotius (whose 
learning Amicus may doubt, if he please,) received them as au- 
thority, and quotes the very passage quoted by myself. The 
unanimous testimony of these good men to the universal preva- 
lence of water baptism in those early times, is proof irresistible, 
if any more is wanted, that neither Paul, nor Peter, nor any one 
of the Apostles ever changed their mind, but practised and re- 
commended this ordinance to the day of their death. 

The next bold objection of Amicus, is to the meaning of the 
word " baptize." He denies that it commonly signifies an out- 
ward rite, " but very commonly (that is, more than commonly) 
implies the purifying operation of the Holy Spirit." Now I am 
willing to admit that it sometimes "implies" regeneration, but 
I deny that this is its common or proper meaning. Whenever 
it signifies a change of heart, the sufferings of Christ, or the 
communication of miraculous gifts, it is ridiculous to deny that 
ft is used in a figurative, and what grammarians call, an im- 
proper sense. To show in what sense it is used in Scripture, I 

15 



114 

will quote a few who were as well acquainted with the meaning 
of the words they used, as any of their opponents. 1. Matthew 
calls John the Baptist's rite, which was undoubtedly with water, 
baptism, iii. 6. 2. Mark does the same, i. 4. 3. Luke, Acts 
viii. 16. says, " For as yet the Holy Ghost was fallen upon none 
of them, only they were baptized." 4. Philip went down into 
the tvater and baptized the Eunuch, Acts viii. 38. 5. Peter, 
Acts x. 47 : after the Holy Ghost had fallen on the centurion 
and his company, says, " who can forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized." 6. Paul, 1 Cor. i. \7. says, " Christ 
sent me not to baptize," and in chap. xv. 29. he speaks of their 
being "baptized for the dead ;" . and in Heb. x. 10. he calls the 
sprinkling and washing of the old dispensation " divers bap- 
tisms." (Greek) And lastly, John in his Gospel, written at 
least sixty years after the death of Christ, uses the word in the 
same sense, John iii. 22, 23, 26. iv. 1. 

Amicus is pleased to say, he can produce "more than Thirty" 
instances where it is used figuratively for " the operation of the 
Holy Ghost." If he could produce a hundred, it would be of 
no avail, unless he could prove that this was its common and pro- 
per sense, and that it was so used by our Lord in his commission. 
But so far from this, with the exception of a few passages in 
which it is used for the sufferings of Christ, and for miraculous 
gifts, out of Eighty passages, he cannot produce Ten in which 
it even alludes to or " implies" the influence of the Spirit ; and 
of passages in which it is used exclusively for spiritual baptism, 
he cannot produce one ! The texts to which he will at once re- 
fer, are 1 Cor. xii. 13. Gal. iii. 27. Rom. vi. 3. 1 Peter iii. 
21. in all which texts baptism is used in a literal as well as figu- 
rative sense. The first is your favorite text. " By one spirit 
we are all baptized into one body." This " one body" is the 
church visible and invisible. By baptism with water we arc 
introduced into union with the former ; by baptism with the 
Spirit, into union with the latter. The one is a type of the other. 
The meaning of Gal. iii. 27. is the same. ',* As many as have 
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Baptism is 
here also used in two senses, a literal and a figurative. As 
many as have received outward baptism, have put on Christ 
outwardly or made a profession of Christ ; as many as have 
been baptized into his Spirit, have put him on inwardly, or re- 
ceived his image on their hearts. I have quoted these favorite 
passages of yours to show that in these also, there is a reference 
to the external rite ; and secondly, to show the use of Baptism 
as an external bond of union, a profession of Christ, and a badge 
of discipleship. 

The next bold objection which lie makes, and one in which he 



115 

surpasses all his predecessors, and shows himself a perfect hero 
in contradiction, is that the Apostles did not practise water bap- 
tism on the day of Pentecost ! I know not what he will deny next, 
unless it be, that John the Baptist used water ! It is not enough 
that the Apostles, on that occasion, distinguished between bap- 
tism and tiie gift of the Holy Ghost : not enough that they af- 
terwards explained their own meaning in the cases of the P^u- 
nuch, Centurion, and others, when water is expressly mention- 
ed — he will have it they did not baptize with water, because 
u there was no stream of water within several miles deep enough 
to immerse them ! !" And because there was no " stream of 
water" near Samaria, nor in the Centurion's house, nor in the 
Jail of Philippi, we are, I suppose, to infer there was no water 
baptism in any of these places ! — To me it seems that had the 
water been poured upon them, it would have been quite as ex- 
pressive of the outpouring of the spirit, as plunging them all 
over in water. (How Amicus can consistently contend that 
baptism means immersion all over in water, and yet has no allu- 
sion to water, I submit to the reader.) 

But he has discovered another argument of still greater force, 
they were baptized "for the remission of sins," and no Christian 
will say that remission of sins is obtained by water baptism." 
This he thinks conclusive. I would ask if remission of sins is 
obtained by the baptism of the Spirit ? certainly not ; remission 
of sins is granted first, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. — 
God pardons the rebel, before he adopts the child. Again, I 
ask why is John's baptism called the "baptism of repentance ?" 
Acts xiii. 23. xix. 4. Did it obtain repentance? — Everyone 
may see that the reason why it is so called is, that it was a pro- 
fession of repentance, an indication or sign of repentance on 
the part of the person baptized; while on the part of God 
it was a token of pardon, or a sign of the remission of sins. 
Thus it is said, Luke iii. 3. " He (John) came into all the 
country round about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- 
ance for the remission or sins." Now I ask, did not John 
baptize with water? Or will he deny this also ! He might just 
as well deny that John baptized with water in the wilderness, as 
that the Apostles did the same on the day of Pentecost. His 
boasted argument, therefore, recoils upon himself, and shows at 
once the fact and the propriety of water baptism. It is a sign of 
i6 repentance 99 on our part, and of (i remission of sins" on the 
part of God. It strengthens our hope of remission, and the ob- 
ligation of repentance, and thus is an useful means of grace. 

Amicus quotes me as saying it was no man's duty *• to com- 
mand any one to be baptized with the Holy Ghost." I sai-.i no 
*uch thing : though if I had, it would have been true. I meant 



116 



to say, it is " no m airs duty to be baptized with the Holy Ghost;" 
using this phrase in its only Scriptural sense, for miraculous gifts. 
It was no more their duty then, than mine now, to speak with 
tongues, utter prophecies, and work miracles. And the Apostles 
di not mean to "command" any such thing, hut to confess Christ, 
to prof 'ess repentance, and " put on Christ" hy being baptized 
with water in his name. 

On the subject of " Apostolic Infallibility," bethinks it better 
to make them err in judgment than in practice. I think it bet- 
ter to dishonour them than God ; better to " impeach their in- 
tegrity" than their inspiration. Their integrity is their own con- 
cern, their inspiration is ours. An error in judgment would re- 
flect on Him who promised to 6i lead them into all truth ;" an 
error in practice would only prove them imperfect in sanctifica- 
tion. — Amicus must know little of the human heart, or of Chris- 
tian experience, not to admit that the best of God's people, " do 
the things which they allow not," and while " with the mind, 
they serve the law 7 of God, with the flesh they serve the law of 
sin." (Rom. vii.) But on this subject your advocate is as bad as 
myself. For, in his last essay, he says, " I am very certain 
they never were mistaken on this point," (baptism) i. e. 
their judgment was right. But in the preceding essay, he says 
* 4 1 admitted that in the early periods of the church, the Apos- 
tles practised water baptism." Then they either practised con- 
trary to their judgment, or they viewed water baptism as right ! 
But if they judged it right, and " were not mistaken," then it 
certainly was right. Thus Amicus has " aided in defeating 
himself!" 

The reader will remember however, that my doctrine is, they 
never erred in judgment, and seldom, very seldom erred in prac- 
tice. And that they never commanded nor recommended, nor 
habitually practised any thing wrong. That, therefore, their 
commanding, recommending, and habitually practising water 
baptism, is a proof of its propriety and Divine authority. 

In answering my argument from John iii. 5. he very disin- 
genuously substitutes the 3d verse for the 5th. — In the text which 
I quoted, our Lord does not say "except a man be born of 
water, he cannot "see," but cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." Unbaptized persons may see, with the natural eye, the 
visible church, but cannot enter into it, or become its members. 

I now proceed to notice two texts which have been used 
through this whole discussion as perfect hobbies ; texts in fact, 
upon a false construction of which the greater part of your sys- 
tem rests, texts which form the cement of Barclay's work, and 
which I believe have more influence upon your mind than all the 
rest of Scripture. The first is Eph. iv. 5; "one Lord, one 



117 

faith, one baptism" and the second, Matt. iii. 11: " I indeed 
baptize with water, but lie (Christ) shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost." The former you quote as excluding more than 
one form, shape or kind of baptism ; and the second as equiv- 
alent to a declaration that Christ should not baptize with water. 
On the first text, 1 remark, 1. J have no objection to your doc- 
trine ; I admit there is but one baptism, and that is water bap- 
tism. This is the common, proper, real baptism of the Scrip- 
tures ; all other baptisms are not really, but only metaphorically 
such. But 2. I object to your construction of this text. Because 
you would set aside the baptism of blood, as well as that of mira- 
culous gifts, and thus make the Apostle declare a falsehood ; 
and because, it was not the Apostle's object to tell how we are 
baptized, but to draw an argument for the unity and harmony of 
christians. He is advising them to '• keep the unity of the 
Spirit in the bond of peace," because they have " one Lord, one 
faith, one baptism;" i. e. the same Lord, the same faith, the 
same baptism. His expressions as much prove there is but one 
kind of faith, as one kind of baptism ; and we know there are 
different kinds of faith. Again, this text as clearly proves there 
is but one Lord, as one baptism. And as the Father is here 
called Lord, therefore, upon your construction neither the Son 
nor the Holy Ghost is Lord, for there is one Lord, as well as one 
baptism. If the phrase "one Lord" is not inconsistent with a 
plurality of persons in the Godhead ; the phrase " one baptism" 
is not inconsistent with plurality of modes. You must therefore 
either give up your argument or reject the doctrine of the Trini- 
ty. Only substitute the words " the same," in the place of 
*? one," and you perceive the force and beauty of the Apostle's 
argument. Thus ^ne of your main pillars falls to the ground. 
Let us now examine your other argument, John's prediction, 
that Christ should not baptize with water. John never made any- 
such declaration, 'or any thing like it; and before you quote 
Mat. iii. 11. any more in this view, escape if you can, the fol- 
lowing dilemmas. 1. Christ actually baptized with water. John 
iii. 22. " And there he (Jesus) tarried with them and baptized." 
This was no "false report," nor "scandalous rumour," but 
'he declaration of an eye witness, of the beloved disciple, and 
inspired Apostle. " He tarried there and baptized." 2. It is 
of little consequence whether he baptized with his own hands, 
or by the hands of his disciples; whether he did it himself, or 
ordered it to be done. If he had not been the director, cause, and 
author of it, it could not have been said with truth. " He bap- 
tized." 3. Now John the Baptist either did not say Christ 
should not baptize with watcv, or he told a falsehood ! If you 
admit the former, you give up his testimony ; if the latter, you 
tell us his testimony is nothing worth. Take your choice. 



118 

If you attempt to escape by saying "Jesus baptized not, but 
his disciples," (John iv. 1.) and that John did not allude to 
what Christ would do by his disciples, but to what he should do 
in his own person, you are in another dilemma. For 1, The 
baptism in question (Matt, xxviii. 19.) is a baptism to be per- 
formed not by Christ immediately, but by the hands of his disci- 
ples. (i Go ye baptize all nations." Now, 2. Joan either re- 
ferred to what Christ should do by his disciples, or he did not. 
If he did not, his declaration has no bearing on the question. If 
you say he did, you surrender your position, make John the 
Baptist assert a falsehood, and contradict yourselves ! 

The truth is, John the Baptist did not mean to assert that 
Jesus should or should not baptize with water ; he only intend- 
ed to contrast his own meanness with Christ's glory ; as he says 
in the same verse, " He that cometh after me is greater than I ; 
I can only baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with 
more, with the Holy Ghost." I have been thus particular in 
answering these two texts, because they form the two sides of 
Barclay's ladder, which once taken away, the internal structure 
,falls of course. 

Before I conclude, I would add a word on the conformity of 
this ordinance to the present dispensation. — Says Amicus, "we 
arc not to suppose that Christ would order any rite inconsistent 
with bis own administration." True; but we are to suppose 
Him a better Judge of what is consistent and what is inconsistent 
than ourselves. The fallacy lies here : you first determine in 
your own mind what is proper for Infinite Wisdom to prescribe, 
and then take it for granted this has actually been prescribed. 
We take the opposite course; first inquiring what God has actu- 
ally prescribed, and then acknowledging " he hath done all 
tilings well." Upon your ground infidels reject the inspiration 
of the Scriptures. They first imagine a priori what sort of a 
Revelation God would make, and then because the Bible does 
not correspond with their preconceived notions, they reject it as 
false. The grand argument on which we rest its propriety, is 
the same on which we rest the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, 
and justification by faith alone, — God has expressly taught it in 
his word. Yet we are far from saying, it cannot be defended 
on the ground of reason. For when viewed as connected, as it 
always is when properly administered, with teaching; when 
viewed as a sign of discipleship, and the bond of a covenant, it 
is an excellent means of grace. It is no more inconsistent with 
the present dispensation than preaching, prayer, singing, con- 
versation, public worship, silent waiting — all which are external 
signs of certain exercises of heart, binding the persons who prac- 
tise them, to make their internal feelings correspond with their 



119 

external conduct. All these, with baptism and the Lord's sup- 
per, are means of grace, or ordinances by which God, in his 
own time and way, communicates grace, and without using 
which no person has a right to expect grace. While we are in 
the body, it will ever be proper, yea necessary, to address our 
understandings through our senses. 

PAUL. 



Seveiith'day, lolli Mo. c, 1621. 

LETTER XIII. 

Isr the genera] character and particular features of Paul's first 
addresses to us, there is evidence of an overweaning confidence 
in his own powers — anxious for a contest and confident of a vic- 
tory, he invaded our peaceable territory and proclaimed an of- 
fensive war ; but he advanced in untried armour, not conscious 
of his weakness, nor of his adversary's forces. In his first 
manifesto he proclaimed to the world "the purity of his mo- 
tives," and " the justness of his cause/'—- and added for our in- 
formation, that " he was armed strong in honesty," and did not 
"fear controversy." Notwithstanding the formidable appear- 
ance of such an assailant, had he used no weapons but truth and 
fair argument, he might have passed along quietly — the discus- 
sion of our doctrines would at least have occupied his idle hours, 
and the correctness of our principles when fairly stated would 
have been seen in his attempts to refute them. But it was hot 
long before our assailant convinced us by the uncandid misre- 
presentation of our doctrines, that some attempt at an explana- 
tion of them was due to the public, and to the cause we had es- 
poused. Under this impression, " Amicus" commenced a set of 
Essays for the sole purpose of illustrating our religious views : 
pursuing this object in the most inoffensive manner, he was soon 
assailed by the most pointed sarcasms, and the society of which 
he is a member, by the most opprobious epithets ; mistaking 
mildness for weakness, our opponent took every opportunity to 
defame us, in which he manifested a malevolence of character, 
worthy indeed of a persecuting " Saul," but totally unfitting 
the character of the mild and benevolent Apostle, whose name 
he has assumed. For confirmation of this statement, see 
"Paul's" productions in Letters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11. 

Such were the circumstances of the present discussion, when 
" Paul" dissatisfied with my explanatory method of defending 
our doctrines, and eager to show his skill at close quarters, press- 
ed " Amicus' to " come to the point." A clear exposition of the 



120 

erroneous opinions of my opponent, soon followed ? our prin- 
ciples were shewn to be consistent with sound reason, the nature 
of the Gospel dispensation, and the plainest Scripture text — but 
unhappily for the repose of our assailant, the strength of our 
position could not in the nature of things, be made known to him. 
without exhibiting his own weakness ; this discovery has thrown 
him into a state not very becoming his profession as an advocate 
of religion. His last address to us, bears strong marks of an 
angry spirit, instead of a " spirit full of love !" the proof of 
which, in the first paragraph of his Essay, will I think, be of- 
fensive to his friends. Truth will have compassion on Error, 
it is the property of Error to be angry at the Truth. 

I will only observe in reply to his assertion, that "Amicus" 
was infuriated and desperate," that if any symptoms of such a 
state were apparent in the phraseology of my last production, I 
have been most unhappy in the selection of terms to express my 
feelings; I cannot however reject the belief, that " Paul" has 
drawn this angry portrait from the state of his own mind. — 
<f Amicus" certainly was very far removed from " despair " 
when he penned that Essay ; as to "fury," he neither felt it, 
nor perceived any reason to feel it on that occasion. I have yet 
to learn that any position I have advanced on the subject of wa- 
ter baptism, can be refuted by Scripture testimony or sound ar- 
gument. Of the state of my temper, I cheerfully leave my read- 
ers to judge. 

It is an important question, at this point of the discussion,. 
" how far the ecclesiastical writers of those periods, which suc- 
ceeded the Apostolic age, are to be relied on for the confirmation 
or refutation of any doctrine that may be advanced by either of 
us." Now I will cheerfully grant that any document written 
under the immediate influence of Divine inspiration is good and 
sufficient evidence of the truths to which it is applicable : and I 
think my opponent will admit, that no uninspired writer can with 
propriety be quoted as authority on doctrinal subjects. Now! 
affirm that not only the professors of Christianity at large, 
hut also the Teachers of the second century, and of every suc- 
ceeding age were divided in sentiment on the most important 
subjects. By comparing the writings of Justin* Theophilus of 
Antioch, Clemens, Alexandrinus and Tertullian, this position 
will be fully confirmed. But besides the evidence of their falli- 
bility exhibited in their writings, there is irrefutable testimony 
to this point in the history of their practice. Their departure 
from the simplicity of Christian worship, their adoption of the 
heathen philosophy, and their introduction of Jewish and Pagan 
rites into the Church, mark their apostacy from the Divine 
purity of the Christian Religion, as taught by our Lord and his 






121 

faithful Apostles. If the limits of my essay permitted it, I 
could easily adduce ample proofs of this statement ; if my op- 
ponent should deny its truth, I shall take the pains to prove it 
from historical records. The conclusion to he drawn from the 
premises is plain ; the church of professing Christians after the 
first century is not sufficient authority to prove the truth of any 
doctrines or the purity of any practice not clearly estahlished hy 
our Lord or his Apostles. 

"Paul" still manifests his affection for that spurious produc- 
tion called the " Apostolic constitutions." Indeed it appears 
that he has substantial reasons for his attachment to this work ; 
whilst its authority, and that of the early Fathers would indeed 
be " a severe thorn in my side," as well as in the sides of the 
good people of the United States of America, it would undoubt- 
edly be a cordial to him. " In the second century," says Mo- 
sheim, "the Christian Doctors had the "good fortune to per- 
** suade the people that the ministers of the Christian church 
" succeeded to ihe character, rights and privileges of the Jewish 
" priesthood, and this persuasion was a new source both of honour 
et and profit to the sacred order; the errors to which this absurd 
" comparison gave rise, were many, and one of its immediate 
" consequences was the establishing a greater difference between 
" the Christian Pastors and their flock , than the genius of the 
" Gospel seems to admit." See Mosh. Eccl. Hist. Cent, II, 
Part 2. Cap. 2. "Paul" says "it is generally supposed the con- 
stitutions were written at the close of the second, or in the com- 
mencement of the third century, and have been received as au- 
thority by the greatest men." Although it is not correct that 
this was the general supposition, yet as my opponent desires it 
should be so, we will for the present admit the statement. Now 
in order that my reader may judge for himself of the state of 
the church at the time they were written, I will on the authori- 
ty of the learned Dr. Jortin, give some of the sentiments con- 
tained in this celebrated production : " The constitutions," 
says the Doctor, "repeatedly assert, that a bishop is a god, 
" a god upon earth ! and a king, and infinitely superior to a king, 
" and ruling over Rulers and Kings I they commanded Christians 
" to give him tribute as a King, and reverence him as a god ! and to 
" pay him tithes and first fruits, according, say they, to God's 
" command, and they strictly forbid Christians to make any in- 
66 quiry or to take any notice whether he dispose of these reve 
" nues well or ill ! ! !" 

" Can the Christian Reader suppress his indignation" at the 

perusal of this impious doctrine . ? on my part I can truly say 

that it excites no sentiment like indignation. In our happy 

country it is as harmless as a papal anathema ! Divine mercy 

16 



lias shed a ray of light on the Christian world which is melting 
away the power of a mercenary Priesthood, and penetrating the 
dark ahodes of superstition ; the advocates of such a doctrine 
have a better title to our pity, than to our anger : no practice 
that depends for its support on such a broken reed, can finally 
avoid a fall. 

My opponent tells his reader that "Amicus" denies that 
" Baptism," commonly in Scripture signifies, an outward rite — 
that Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, JEenry, Parkhurst and 
Gill, are of any authority as critics, or the Fathers as witnesses 
to a plain fact ." Now not one word of this sentence is true, 
although it is a pretty fair specimen of "Paul's" candour in all 
the stages of this discussion as I shall have occasion to shew in 
future. In the first place I have never said that the word bap- 
tism is not commonly used to signify an outward rite — although 
I have said that "in the New Testament it is very commonly used 
to imply the purifying operation of the Holy Spirit," but there 
is no contradiction in this position „• a word may be commonly 
used to convey at different times distinct meanings. " Paul" 
himself acknowledges this truth, where he says, " The King- 
dom of God is in Scripture used in two senses | for the visible 
and invisible church, for the body of apparent and of real saints. 
That it sometimes means the invisible church all will admit, but 
that it often means also the visible church none will doubt." 
Thus we see that niy opponent who insists so strongly for the 
literal meaning of words, in one case, can when it suits his pur- 
pose, contend for a figurative meaning in another. Sometimes 
" the Kingdom of God" is to be understood literally , often figu- 
ratively. 

Paul in his last essay, either through inattention to the state of 
the controversy or from a desire to lead his reader away from 
the points at issue, takes much pains to prove, that the Baptism 
of John was with water, and that Water Baptism was sometimes 
used in the primitive church ; he might have saved himself all 
this unnecessary trouble if he had reverted to a former conclu- 
sion of "Amicus," that "this no more proves that Water Bap- 
tism is an ordinance of Christ, than that circumcision and Jew- 
ish sacrifices are yet binding on the church. Not only Water 
Baptism, but circumcision and Jewish sacrifices were used in 
the days of John the Baptist — in the time of our Saviour, and 
in the apostolic age, and for a long time afterwardsTn the pro- 
fessed churches of Christ, as can be clearly proved : If there- 
fore the practice of the Apostles prove any thing, it proves too 
much, and the whole conclusion drawn from these facts must fall 
to the ground. 

The contradictions and absurdities in " Paul's" attempt to 



uphold his carnal scheme, are so numerous, that the limits of an 
essay would be too narrow to exhibit them. I will, however, 
point to a few of them. First, in Letter XI, lie tells us that the 
Apostle speaks of water baptism as an important means of salva- 
tion ; then he tells us it is a symbol or sign of regeneration. 
Now I would ask how in the nature of things, can any symbol 
or sign, be an important means of salvation ? 

Again he tells us that the early Fathers commonly used the 
phrase, "the washing of regeneration," to signify baptism; 
now according to my opponent, water baptism is a " symbol, or 
sign of regeneration ;" of course, the washing of regeneration, 
must be a sign of regeneration ! this conclusion is too contra- 
dictory to common sense, to need animadversion. 

Quoting the text " By one Spirit we are all baptized into one 
body," he says "this one body is the church, visible and invisible. 
By baptism with water, we are introduced into union with the 
former, by baptism with the Spirit into the latter, the one is a 
type of the other." Thus he would make the word " Baptism" 
to have two meanings at the same time ; one literal, and the 
other figurative. But the absurdity of this construction plainly 
appears from the text? for the Holy Spirit is mentioned as the 
baptizer. "By one Spirit we are all baptized." So that ac- 
cording to "Paul," water baptism is performed by the Holy 
Spirit ! 

y Again quoting Gal. iii. 27: " As many as have been baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ," he tells us that " baptism here 
is used in two senses a literal, and, & figurative." One meaning 
with water, and the other with the Spirit. Now if this construc- 
tion were correct, none can put on Christ, except he be baptized 
with water ! 

I will now advert to " Paul's" explanation of John iii. 5 : a 
text on which he seems to place much reliance for the support of 
the sprinkling system. — "Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say 
unto thee, except a man he born of water, and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." "The Kingdom of* 
God" in this passage, must either mean the visible or invisible 
church. If it mean the visible church, then according to " Paul," 
no man can enter the visible church, unless he be baptized with 
water, and with the Spirit ; which is a contradiction to the uni- 
form experience of mankind. If it mean the invisible church in 
Heaven, and the word water alludes to water baptism, then no 
man can be saved unless he has been baptized in water, 
which my opponent will not assert ; the inevitable conclusion is, 
that the word water in the text, is used figuratively, just in the 
same manner as John the Baptist used the word "fire" where 
he says, when speaking of the baptism of Christ, "He shall 
baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" Luke iii. 16, 



124 

It must have been observed by our readers, ihat 
method of interpreting the Scriptures, is so loose that if it be 
sanctioned, there is no position so weak that it may not be sup- 
ported by the sacred text. Sometimes he takes a passage figu- 
ratively — sometimes literally; sometimes to bend it to his pur- 
pose, he at the same time puts a figurative and literal meaning 
on the same word. This course, if it receive the general appro- 
bation, must tend wholly to undermine the authority of the 
Scripture, and render it subservient to the basest purposes* 
Every passage must have either a literal or figurative meaning ; 
there is no alternative ; the writer intended to express himself 
either in a literal or figurative sense ; any other hypothesis would 
destroy all confidence in the text, and do more mischief to the 
cause of Christianity, than all the cavils of the Atheist or Infidel. 

Let us now turn to " Paul's" explanation of the text, " There 
is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in you all," Eph. iv. 5, 
6. — The baptism of water, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
are clearly mentioned in Scripture as two distinct baptisms.' 
John's expressions are conclusive on this point. *• I indeed 
have baptized you with water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost." Now when the Apostle wrote this pas- 
sage, only "one" of these Baptisms was binding on the believer 
in Christ. There is but one Christian Baptism; this position can- 
not be refuted ; — the text is too clear to be perverted by sophis- 
try. The question then is, what is that one Baptism ? We say 
it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. " Paul" says it is «* water 
baptism, and that there is no other real baptism !" If this were 
admitted, then our Lord was mistaken when he said, Acts i. 5 : 
*' Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ;" then the Apostle 
was mistaken, when he said, " By one Spirit we are all baptized 
into one body,"' — and then the faith of the Holy Apostle and all 
the spiritual members of the church of Christ, has been in vain ; 
they have all died in their sins, for without real spiritual bap- 
tism, there is no remission of sin. 

** Paul," in order to avoid the force of the text, tells us there 
are different kinds of faith, and several Lords ; there appears to 
be some truth in this assertion, for it clearly appears that his 
faith is very different from the faith of the Apostle ; my oppo- 
nent's faith is of a carnal nature ; it rests in elementary water, 
" in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordi- 
nances," as the " important means of salvation." He also ac- 
knowledges several Lords, in which he plainly declares his 
faith to be different from the Apostle's faith, who, in 1 Cor. viii, 
5, 6 : says, " For though there be, that are called Gods, wheth- 
er in Heaven or in earth, for there be Gods many* and Lords 



i2o 

many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are 
all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
are all things, and we by him." — I think my reader must ac- 
knowledge, on a serious review of these authorities, that the 
pillar which "Paul" supposed had fallen to the ground, still 
stands in its place, a firm support to that excellent testimony 
against the weakness of all typical and carnal ordinances, 
" weak as pertaining to the conscience, and which can never 
make him that doeth the service, perfect," 

" Paul" attempts to weave a dilemma or two for me ; and as 
they are rather an unpleasant thing to be entangled in, I will 
not rest in them as he does, without making an attempt to extri- 
cate myself, in which I have no fear I shall easily succeed. The 
first dilemma is formed by an assertion of my opponent, which is 
in contradiction to the plainest Scripture testimony. — f Paul" 
says, " Jesus did baptize with water." The Evangelist says, 
" Jesus baptized not, but his disciples." That our Lord "or- 
dered it to be done," rests upon a bare assertion ; there is not 
nhe least proof of it, as my reader will see by reading the whole 
passage. I do not know that the true state of the case can be 
better explained than in the language of Dell, master of Gonvil 
and Caius college in Cambridge. " The baptism of John was 
" very honourable, and of high account in its time, so that the 
" very disciples of Christ look it up, and Christ himself suffered 
" them, because John's baptism was the sign and forerunner of 
66 his, and because the time of his own baptism was not yet 
*' come ; but Christ himself used it not as John witnesses, chap. 
" iv. 2: saying Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples — 
" to wit, with John's baptism, which was water baptism. For 
M it became not the Son of God to baptize with a creature, nor the 
" Lord of all to use the baptism of a servant." See " The Doc- 
trine of Baptism reduced from its ancient and modern corrup- 
tions, by Wm. Dell, printed 1652." 

The other dilemma is formed by begging the question — by a 
mere assumption without the least proof. He says the baptism 
in question (Matt, xxviii. 19 :) is a baptism to be performed not 
by Christ immediately, but by the hands of his disciples. But 
the text does not say, " Go teach all nations baptizing them, 
with your hands in water," but " Go teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy- 
Ghost," for so the Greek has it. If "Paul" can prove that 
the disciples were ordered to baptize " with their hands," I 
will cheerfully yield the point ; but this I am certain he can 
never do. Now if my opponent cannot weave a stronger di-< 
lemma than these, I think he had better relinquish the business. 

Having noticed all the material parts of " Paul's last essav. 



126 

I will conclude this number with a short extract from a poetical 
letter of the celebrated M. Knowles, written on the subject now 
in discussion many years ago. 

" No typic observations are revered, 

" Since their immortal Archetype appeared. 

" Fox preached this doctrine to a seeking- age, 

" It shines in Barclay's unrefuted page — 

" Simple their scheme — no mean self-love they knew, 

** But freely preached without a sordid view; 

" With hearts devoted, Gospel truths displayed, 

rt And scorned to make Divinity a trade : 

** No juggling' art e'er used — no low disguise, 

" O'er obvious texts, and sense to tyrannize ; 

«' Discerning truth by its own native light, 

" And by its guidance, practiced what was right/' 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, Oct. 13, 16S21. 

LETTER XII. 

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

The last essay of Amicus contains nothing of importance and 
serves simply to fill the blank. Two or three things only I 
would notice. His long defence of his motives was unnecessa- 
ry. Though I have been puzzled at times to reconcile his want 
of candour, his cunning evasions, and erroneous quotations with 
perfect honesty, I have never intentionally questioned, nor am I 
now disposed to question his general integrity, or coolness of 
temper. And I assure him that I feel not the slightest emotion 
of anger, though accused of writing with an " angry spirit,''* 
with an " overweaning confidence," with " malevolence," and 
asserting what was "not one word of it true !" Let the public 
decide. 

The reader will remember that the author of the '< Apostolic 
Constitutions," against which he inveighs so much, was only 
one of seventy witnesses adduced by me to prove the universal 
prevalence of water baptism in primitive times. No other wit- 
ness has he questioned. 

Campbell, Parkhurst, Doddridge, and others, were quoted br 
me expressly and solely as critics, to determine the sense of a 
Greek word ; and the Fathers solely as witnesses of the fact of 
water baptism. He sets them all aside as of " no more authori- 
ty" with him, "than the writers of the church of Rome" with 
me. Yet when I charge him with rejecting the former as critics, 
and the latter as witnesses of fact, he charges me with saying 
what is w not true." Now he either did reject them as critics 



127 

and witnesses, or he did not. If he did, what I said was true; 
it' he did not, his declaration was nothing to the point. He has 
his choice. 

Whether he has escaped, or ever can escape the dilemmas 
founded on John iii. 22, let the public judge. It was a maxim 
of Amicus in a late number, that " what a principal does by the 
agency of another, he does himself." It is of no consequence 
therefore, whether our Lord baptized with his own hands, or by 
his disciples, provided he baptized. The Editor of the Reposi- 
tory as really prints that paper, as though he set the types with 
his own hands. It is true that he prints the paper, and it is like- 
wise true that he does not print it himself, but his workmen* 
In like manner, it is true that Jesus baptized ; while it is equal- 
ly true that " Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." If 
however, the Editor of the Repository did not employ, direct, sw- 
perintend, or cause others to print the paper, it could not be said 
with truth he printed it. Upon the same principle, if our Lord 
did not authorize, direct, or order the disciples to baptize, the in- 
spired Apostle was mistaken when he says of Jesus, " he bap- 
tized* 9 — " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized. 
And John also was baptizing in Enon, &c." John iii. 22, 23. 
It is as expressly said that Jesus baptized, as that John baptized. 
Amicus is therefore on the horns of the dilemma still. 

On the subject of Apostolic practice, Amicus has not only 
taken ground different from all his predecessors, but has shifted 
his own ground. The usual mode of defence has been to admit 
the fact that the Apostles practised water baptism, but hold they 
were mistaken* This ground was at first taken by your ad- 
vocate. Driven from this, he takes the opposite ground, and 
says, " I am very certain thatthey never were mistaken on this 
point," and denies the fact that they baptized with water on the 
day of Pentecost. Not anticipating the denial of a fact so evi- 
dent, I did not quote the passages at large, and it seems out of place 
to do it now. Let the reader examine for himself,* taking the 
concession of Amicus in his hand that " they never were mis- 
taken on this point," let him examine Acts ii. viii. ix. x. xvi. xix. 
&c. and decide whether the Apostles did not really believe water 
baptism to be an institution of Christ. I have no fear of the re- 
sult. Every candid reader will be convinced that they who, 
like the Pharisees and Lawyers of old, refuse to be be baptized, 
{i reject the counsel of God against themselves. 9 ' (Luke vii. 30.) 



Amicus, in three long essays on this subject, has laboured to 
prove three things : — "that this ordinance was not instituted 



128 

by Christ" — "was not practised by the Apostles" — and "is 
not consistent with the present dispensation." So weak and 
irrelevant are most of his arguments, that I would not notice 
them, but let my former essay, on this subject, stand against 
his three, were I not afraid some people, without examination, 
would measure the weight by the bulk. Compared with the bulk 
of his words, his arguments are as " two kernels of wheat in a 
bushel of chaff!" His long quotations from Scripture and from 
Cradock, to prove that our Lord and his disciples " met to eat 
the passover, — that the Jews were in the practice of using bread 
and wine at that feast, and that the present is a spiritual dispen- 
sation" — quotations which occupy the larger portion of his three 
essays, every judicious reader must have at once pronounced 
nothing to the point I We are willing to admit they met for the 
celebration of the passover, but out of this feast, or after it, our 
Lord formed his own feast, in the room of the passover. We 
grant also that our Lord did not send off to the market for bread 
and wine, but took that which was on the table before him : and 
also, that the present is pre-eminently a dispensation of the spirit; 
but as a dispensation, it is not so spiritual as to set aside every 
thing external, or we must reject Preaching, Praying, Public 
Worship, Reading, Conversation, for all these are addressed to 
the senses, as well as Baptism or the Lord's Supper. 

The plain question is, did our Lord, or did he not institute what 
uoe call the Lord's Supper? You say no, and we say yes. I 
have already referred in general to the evidence on this subject ; 
a more particular reference will confirm my former arguments. 

That our Lord actually instituted this feast, is proved by four 
inspired witnesses. First Witness. The Evangelist Matthew 
in chapter xxvi. 26 : says, " As they were eating, Jesus took 
bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, 
and said, take, eat, this is my body. And lie took the cup, and 
gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it; for 
this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many 
for the remission of sins." 

On this plain testimony I would simply remark, the Apostle 
must have understood our Lord as introducing a new and im- 
portant ceremony, or he would not 'have noticed it. Matthew 
had been long and intimately acquainted with Jewish usages on 
this subject, and had three times before, celebrated the Passover 
with our Lord himself. If this was an usual ceremony at thai 
feast, and " no new institution," why had he never before re- 
marked it ? It was manifestly a new institution which our Lord 
here introduced as less burdensome, and more signifcant than 
the Passover. 

Second Witness. The Evangelist Mark, in chapter xiv. 
22 : bears the same testimony, in almost the same words. 



129 

Third Witness. The Evangelist Luke, in chapter xxii. 
19 : says, " And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, 
and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for 
you, this do in REMEMMiNCB of me. Likewise the cup 
also after supper, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my 
blood, which is shed for you." 

Here is not only the institution of the ordinance, but an ex- 
press command to keep it. But says Amicus, " the words * this 
do in remembrance of me,' are in the present tense, and simply 
mean, eat in remembrance of its great Antitype, the Spirit of 
Christ ;" and again, " Christ does not say. 6 do this in remem- 
brance of my death, 9 but eat and drink in remembrance of that 
Divine Spirit which should shortly be poured out." — Answer. 
How r we can remember a thing present, and much more one which 
is to come, is beyond my comprehension ! Remembrance relates 
to things past. And in remembering the " Divine Spirit," there 
is something too vague for common minds. Far preferable is 
the simplicity of the Scripture, " do this in remembrance of 
me," of my sufferings and death. Let this broken bread repre- 
sent my broken body, and this wine my blood, which is shed for 
the remission of sins." Surely his death must be the chief thing 
represented, or there is no meaning in the emblems, no force in 
our Saviour's language, nor in the declaration of the Apostle, 
" As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show 
forth the Lord's death." As therefore, they could not, in the 
nature of tilings, remember his death, till after that death had 
taken place, it follows of course, our Lord intended this feast 
should be celebrated through future generations. 

But here comes a wonderful objection ! *• Matthew 7 and John," 
says Amicus, " were the only Evangelists present at the feast." 
What does he mean by this ? does he mean to insinuate that 
Mark and Luke might have been mistaken ! You must excuse me, 
but indeed, I do look upon all such slights put upon any scrip- 
ture writer, as an attack on inspiration. Is not Moses to be cre- 
dited in his account of the Creation and Deluge, events which 
happened many centuries before his time, and at which, of course, 
he was not present ? Is not the Apostle Paid correct in his state- 
ment of the doctrine of our Lord, merely because he did not see 
nor hear (in the flesh) the things which lie relates ? Are Mark 
and Luke of no authority in their statements concerning the 
Lord's Supper, merely because they were " not present" at its 
institution ? Either there is no force in the remark of Amicus, or 
he intends a sly reflection on the infallibility of the Evangelists. 
In the same way I must understand what he afterwards says, 
"Luke is the only Evangelist who says, do this in remembrance 
otme." What of that ! is not lie enough ? do you consider the 
17 



130 

Gospel which Luke wrote as his gospel, the words as his words, 
or the words dictated hy the Holy Ghost ? I mean, is it simply 
Luke that speaks, or the Lord speaking through him i If you 
assert the former, you deny his inspiration ; if the latter, is not one 
declaration of God as true as a hundred ? To me one declaration 
of an inspired writer, if it be plain and unequivocal, is as strong 
as the testimony of any number ; because I view it not as his 
declaration but the declaration of the God of Truth. But, after 
all, it is not true that Luke is the only writer who mentions this 
command. The Apostle Paul, as will be seen presently, men- 
tions it twice. 

Here then, we have the testimony of God himself (or Luke was 
not inspired) that Christ commanded the observance of thisfeasti 
How can you get over this without denying inspiration ? 

Again, you object the silence of the Apostle John, and inti- 
mate he thought the "circumstance" too "immaterial" to men- 
tion. And so, I suppose, he thought of our Lord's Miraculous 
Conception, Nativity, his Sermon on the Mount, and nine tenths 
of his Miracles ! for none of these does he mention. The fact 
is, 1. After the other Evangelists had given such explicit testi- 
mony, and the ordinance had been observed and established for 
more than half a century through the whole church, there was no 
need of further testimony. 2. His Gospel was intended as a 
supplement to the other gospels ; accordingly, from the middle 
of the sixth chapter, it is almost wholly new and different from 
the other Evangelists. 3. He does allude to this ordinance, and 
pay it a high compliment in his first Epistle, v. 8. making it a 
standing witness for Christ. "And there are three that bear 
witness in earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood." But 
not to dwell on this testimony at present, a 

Fourth Witness is the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23 : "For 
I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, 
that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betraved, 
took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and 
said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you ; This 
do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also, he took 
the cup, saying, This cup is the New-Testament in my blood : 
This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, &c. &c." 
The terms " received" and " delivered" which occur so fre- 
quently in the writings of this Apostle, clearly evince the cha- 
racter in which he viewed himself as acting. He represents 
himself as the mere minister or servant of Christ, "receiving" 
first from him, and then " delivering" what he had received to 
others. In this passage then, 1. He plainly declares he receiv- 
ed this ordinance of the Lord Jesus to deliver to others, thus 
asserting its Divine origin. 2. He twice repeats our Saviour's 



131 

command to observe it. " This do in remembrance of me." 
3. In tbe subsequent verses he attaches great importance and 
solemnity to its observance. " Whosoever eateth this bread and 
drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
body and blood of the Lord,*' or guilty of murdering the Lord. 
And again, such unworthy communicants bring upon themselves 
Divine judgments, even sickness and death, (verses 29, and 30.) 
To suppose all this importance attached to the observance of an 
uncommanded useless ceremony, (as you consider this feast,) is to 
suppose the Apostle acting a solemn farce ! 4. All this was 
written twenty-seven years after the institution of this sacra- 
ment, of course, long after he had had time, (if he needed any 
time) to discover the Divine will upon this subject. What more 
is necessary? Here are four inspired witnesses, all express- 
ly testifying to the Divine authority of an ordinance which you 
neglect and despise. Our Lord says, "Take eat," you say, 
"take it not!" He says, "Do this in remembrance of me;" 
you say, "do it not !" The Apostle says, " I received this feast 
of the Lord Jesus ;" you say, he was mistaken ! 

Here I might with perfect safety rest this subject. Amicus 
might as easily prove our Lord did not command Prayer and 
Public Worship, as that he did not institute the Lord's Supper. 
But he has said some things of the practice of the Jljwstles which 
may be with equal ease and clearness answered. 

His Second Objection to this ordinance was, that " the 
Apostles never practised it." On this subject I would remark, 
that had no account been transmitted to us of their celebrating 
this feast; if in the conciseness of the sacred history, not a word 
had been said about it, nor an allusion made to it, we should 
have fairly presumed they obeyed the injunction of their Lord in 
this particular. The institution of Christ would have been suf- 
ficient authority for practising it ourselves, and believing that the 
Apostles practised it. But we are not thus left. We have the 
clearest testimony that they kept this feast. Without men- 
tioning other passages, I am willing to rely on three. Acts ii. 42. 
It is said in praise of the primitive disciples, that " they con- 
tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and 
in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts xx. 7, 11 : "Upon 
the first day of the week when the disciples came together to 
break bread, Paul preached unto them, &c." To these two pas- 
sages you object, that the " breaking of bread" here mention- 
ed, denotes a " common meal ;" in proof of which, you quote 
those passages which speak of their "having all things com- 
mon," and eating at a common table. To which we answer, 
1. This " breaking of bread" is spoken of before the commu- 
nion of goods took place, as any one may sec who will turn to the 



132 

passage ; of course has no allusion to their social-ordinary meals. 
2. It is spoken of as a religious ceremony and a proof of their 
piety ; " they continued steadfast in breaking of bread and in 
prayers." A most wonderful proof of their piety, if " break- 
ing bread" means nothing more than Amicus understands ! they 
continued steadfast in eating I! But on the supposition it was 
a sacramental eating, a public testimony of their faith in Christ 
in the presence of his foes, it was a religious exercise, and very 
properly mentioned along with their ** prayers" as a proof of 
their faith and boldness in confessing Christ. Besides it is ex- 
pressly distinguished from eating "meat," in the 46th verse, 
** And breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat 
with gladness and singleness of heart." 

3. That this, " breaking of bread" was a religious ceremo- 
ny and sacramental feast, is evident from its being the chief ob- 

ject of their meeting on the Lord's day. " Upon the first day of 
the week when the disciples came together to break bread, &c." 
It is not said " when they came together they broke bread," 
but " they came together to break bread." This was their chief 
object. Now is it not a most gross and unworthy idea to sup- 
pose they came together on that solemn day to eat a common meal ? 
And is it to be supposed that the holy Apostle, " ready to de- 
part on the morrow," at such an affecting season, would coun- 
tenance such gross conduct ? Besides it must be remembered 
that the argument about " communion of goods," and " com- 
mon tables," however it might apply to the saints at Jerusalem, 
would not apply at Troas Where no such communion was known. 

4. The Syriac version, (the earliest version of the New Testa- 
ment, made for the use of the Syrian Christians about Antioch, 
either during, or immediately after the Apostles' days) renders 
the passage " they came together to break the eucharist :" and 
the Arabic version, '* they came together to distribute the body 
of Christ." This shows how early Christians understood these 
passages. 

But if these passages were all blotted out, if every other 
chapter of the New Testament was silent on the subject, so long 
as the xith of Corinthians remains, there will be no other way 
of setting aside this ordinance, but by denying the Apostle's 
inspiration. The passage has been in part already quoted. The 
fact that the feast called the Lord's Supper was observed by these 
Christians, is too plain to be doubted. Amicus therefore ad- 
mits "these Corinthians were some how in the habit of eating 
bread and drinking wine as a religious ceremony." Here he ac- 
knowledges that the feast they observed was not for a carnal but 
" religious" purpose ; and not an occasional act, but an habitu- 
al practice. They were i( some how in the habit !" some how / 



135 

what a pity Scripture had not given Amicus some information 
on this subject ! what a pity he was driven to such improbable 
conjectures, and left in such darkness as to the original of this 
ceremony ! Shall I suggest a key to discover its author and or- 
igin ? You will find it in the 23d verse : " /received of the Lord 
that which also I delivered unto you." They received this ordi- 
nance from the same source from which they received their doc- 
trines, from the dpostle himself ! " I delivered it unto tjou." 
But where could Paul have got it? Our Lord it seems "never in- 
stituted it," the rest of the Apostles " never practised it," it was 
" inconsistent with the present dispensation," how could he have 
come by it ? He tells us himself, " I received it of the Lord 
Jesus." 

The public can now judge whether our Lord appointed, the 
Apostle sanctioned, or the primitive Christians practised the 
Lord's Supper. 

PAUL. 



Seventh-day, loth Mo. 20, 1821. 

LETTER XIV. 

AS " Paul" in his last address to us, has closed his arguments 
on the subject of Water Baptism — before I enter into a defence 
of my opinions on the subject of the Eucharist, I will briefly 
notice some of his remarks on my last essay. In doing this, I 
shall not confine myself to the order in which they occur, but 
take them up as they appear to have a bearing on the points at 
issue. 

The assertion of my opponent that " Amicus has not only 
taken ground different from all his predecessors, but has shifted 
his own ground" — is founded in an unaccountable mistake, as 
will be perceived by a reference to my essay, in Letter XII. 
How such a mistake should occur, seems on any fair principle, 
to be incomprehensible. On a review of that essay, I cannot 
perceive any ambiguity in the expression of my sentiments. 
••' Paul" in a former number had asserted that we were bound 
to prove that the Apostles were mistaken in interpreting their 
Master's mind and will as expressed in Matt, xxviii. 19. "xlmi- 
cus" answered that he was " very certain they never were mis- 
taken on this point, that they never understood our Lord to 
command water baptism." To demonstrate that in the few 
examples of water baptism that occurred afterwards, they did 
not act by virtue of that commission, I shewed that they never 
baptized their converts "in the name of the Father, and of the 



134 

Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which they would have done, if 
they had so understood him. This argument which " Paul can 
never answer, without contradicting his own creed, remains un- 
touched hy any subsequent reply. The Apostles and early con- 
verts to Christianity, both Jews and Gentiles, had been accus- 
tomed to a variety of outward forms and ceremonies in the cele- 
bration of their worship, and which were wholly inconsistent 
with the nature of the Christian dispensation, in which, as our 
Lord taught the woman of Samaria, " they that worship the 
Father must worship him in Spirit and in truth." Under the 
New Covenant, no temple made with hands — no outward cere- 
mony — no carnal rite is necessary to that communion between 
God and the soul in which divine worship essentially consists. 
This truth was not suddenly perceived by the first professors of 
the Gospel, and they continued for some time after its introduc- 
tion, to use many of the Jewish rites as well as the peculiar bap- 
tism of John. This was the only mistake which " Amicus" 
ever attributed to the primitive believers, a mistake which was 
corrected by the gradual increase of Divine light, by the rising 
splendor of the Gospel Sun, under whose increasing radiance 
the weakness and inefficiency of typical institutions were clear- 
ly discovered and pointedly reprobated, as evidently appears by 
the Apostolical Epistles. 

" What a man does by the agency of another, he does him- 
self," is very true : If Jesus had commanded his disciples to 
baptize with water, it might with sufficient propriety be said, 
"he baptized ;" but that he ever commanded them to use Water 
Baptism, remains to be proved. When the Evangelist says, 
John iii. £2 : " After these things came Jesus and his disciples 
into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and bap- 
tized ;" by the context he evidently means, " and they baptized," 
for directly afterwards he declares, that "Jesus baptized not, 
but his disciples," John iv. 2 : " When therefore, the Lord knew 
how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized 
more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, 
but his disciples,) he left Judea and departed again into Gali- 
lee," John iv. 1, 2, 3. The rumour that Christ was any ways 
concerned in the administration of a carnal ordinance, was evi- 
dently offensive to him, he therefore immediately leaves the scene 
of Water Baptism, and retires into Galilee. To those acquaint- 
ed with the Geography of that country, the cause of his leaving 
Judea will be evident. The river Jordan between the lake of 
Gennesareth and the Dead Sea, was the scene of Water Bap- 
tism : there John and the disciples of Christ baptized their con- 
verts. When our Lord knew of a rumour, that he baptized with 
Water, in order to remove a suspicion so derogatory to the Di- 



135 

vine nature of that glorious dispensation which he came to intro- 
duce, he straightway departed from the scene of these opera- 
tions, and retired into a country where this carnal ordinance 
had never been administered. 

With Doddridge, Campbell, Parkhurst and others, as critics, 
I have no controversy, but when as commentators they attempt 
to pervert any plain text of Scripture, I shall deny their authori- 
ty. The command of our Lord, Matt, xxviii. 19 : is as I have 
shewn, translated with accuracy. " Paul" in his eighth Ad- 
dress to us, declared, that " it was well known to all acquainted 
with the Greek, that the word rendered " teach," literally sig- 
nified to make disciples." In my succeeding essay, I quoted 
the original word with its meaning, in Latin and English, that 
my reader might be able to judge for himself, as to the accuracy 
of its translation. I did not, like my opponent, rest the case 
upon a bare assertion. 

With respect to matters of fact, I have never denied the au- 
thority of " the early Fathers," yet I freely confess, that I rely 
on their authority no more than on other respectable writers of 
that period. I do not consider them as inspired penmen, and 
therefore, their credibility rests on the same foundation with 
that of all other historians. 

On the Apostolical constitutions, my opponent " casts a long- 
ing, lingering look," and though from the exposition of their 
real character, he is obliged to abandon them, yet that they may 
pass away with some reputation, he tells us, that "the author 
of them was only one of seventy witnesses," to a practice that 
can add no weight to his argument, unless it were sanctioned by 
the authority of Christ. But who were these " seventy wit- 
nesses !" A council of sixty-six Bishops in the third century when 
the church had grossly apostatized from the faith and practice 
of the Apostles ! Cyprian, Origen and Fidus of the same period ! 
Augustine a persecuting Bishop of the fifth century ! Pelagius 
and Celestius, two monks of the same era whose doctrines were 
alternately applauded and condemned by the Pope of Rome, and 
whose opinions are generally held in abhorrence ! The church 
which my opponent calls "the church of Christ for thirteen 
hundred years," has a much better title to be called "the church 
of Antichrist," it was a corrupt persecuting church. Against 
it Wickliffe, Jerom of Prague, Huss, Luther and Calvin pro- 
tested. From its errors and superstition, the Christian World 
is yet but partially reformed. 

"Paul" asserts that "the last essay of Amicus, contains 
nothing of importance :" By this assertion, he affords us a 
means of determining what he deems unimportant. First he 
deems it of no importance that I have proved " the early Fathers 



136 

were divided in sentiment on the most important subjects, and 
are not sufficient authority to prove the truth of any doctrine, 
or the purity of any practice, not clearly established by our 
Lord or his Apostles ! Secondly, he thinks it of no importance 
that the authorities he quoted for the support of his scheme, arc* 
shewn to be totally unworthy of confidence or respect! Thirdly, 
he thinks it unimportant that I have proved by his own writings, 
that he is inconsistent with himself! Fourthly, that his doctrine 
is irrational, unscriptural and absurd ! Fifthly, that his mode 
of interpreting the Scriptures, is calculated to destroy all con- 
fidence in the sacred text, and is mischievous to the cause of 
Christianity ! and, Sixthly, that his faith is a carnal faith, rest- 
ing in elementary water, in meats, and drinks, and divers wash- 
ings, as the " important means of salvation." 

But < k Paul's" assertion can be considered in no other light 
than mere affectation. He has too much understanding to be 
perfectly indifferent to the weight of the arguments that have 
been adduced. Although Amicus is aware that the excellent 
cause he has espoused, might have fallen into much better 
hands — that his knowledge and experience fall very far short of 
a large number of his fellow professors — that his literary qual- 
ifications are mean, in comparison of many with whom he holds 
religious communion — yet he is also sensible of the Divine na- 
ture, and happy effects of the doctrines we advocate — of their 
conformity with the precepts of Christ and his Apostles; that 
Truth however feebly advocated, is powerful in its nature, and 
with the candid enquirer, its impression will not be easily erad- 
icated. In this belief, I cheerfully rest the case; if my oppo- 
nent is easy, I see no cause why I should not be satisfied. 

I will now advert to " Paul's" attempt to reply to my argu- 
ments, on the subject of the " Lord's Supper." 

The great question on the present subject, is as stated by my 
opponcnt, " Did our Lord, or did he not, institute what is called 
the Lord's Supper?" We deny that he instituted any supper at 
all, and that he ever celebrated any supper but the Passover 
supper. In " Paul's" last address to us there is not the least 
proof, although there is much assertion to the contrary. All the 
evidence he has adduced on this point, amounts to no more than 
this, that our Lord in distributing the Bread and Wine added 
some expressions never before used on that occasion. To prove 
that these expressions used whilst performing the ancient cere- 
monials of the Passover feast, were the institution of a new Fes- 
tival, " Paul" brings forward three Evangelists as evidences. 
We will now attempt to examine these Witnesses, and sift the 
testimony which they give us on this subject. That out- Lord 
was celebrating the Feast of the Passover when he used these 



157 

expressions, cannot be denied. Matthew says, chapter xxvi. 
26, " And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed 
it, and brake it, and gave to the disciples, saying, take eat." 
27 " And lie took the cup and gave thanks saying, drink ye all 
of it." The taking of the bread, the blessing of it, and break- 
ing it, and distributing it to the guests — the taking of the cup, 
and giving thanks, and handing it to the company, were the 
usual rites always performed by the governor or chief man of 
this feast. In doing all this, our Lord certainly instituted no 
new ceremony. They who imitate Him in these particulars, 
so far celebrate the Jewish Passover, and nothing more. We 
will now consider the other testimony of these Witnessess; 
hitherto they have only confirmed my former position. 

Of the Bread, our Lord, according to Matthew, simply says, 
"this is my body." According to Mark, he uses the same 
words. Luke adds, " which is given for you, this do in remem- 
brance of me." Of the Wine, according to Matthew, he says, 
" this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for 
many, for the remission of sins." Mark says, " which is shed 
for many." Luke says, " which is shed for you." The ques- 
tion now is, How are we to understand these words ? My oppo- 
nent says, "the Holy Scriptures in their literal and logical sense, 
are the supreme and only standard of religious truth." Now if 
we interpret these expressions, literally and logically, I cannot 
see how we can reject the doctrine of " the real presence :" we 
must either give up their literal meaning, or unite with the Doc- 
tors of the Church of Rome. I will however, suppose that my 
opponent will be willing to suspend his rule in the present case 
— that he will abandon their literal sense, and rely upon their 
logical meaning. I do not know what others may think of 
" Paul's" reasoning in this case, but after giving it the best at- 
tention in my power, I cannot discover much logic in it; our 
Lord makes his material body and blood, a type or figure of his 
Spiritual body and blood. John vi. 53. "Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you : whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal 
life, and I will raise him up at the last day, for my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." My opponent whose 
views seem remarkably directed to carnal objects, takes a differ- 
ent course, he makes " the broken bread" to " represent Christ's 
broken body, and the wine his blood." Thus he makes bread 
and wine to be the type of a type, which is absurd. The truth is, 
there is no consistent or rational method of interpreting these 
passages, unless we admit that our Lord intended the Bread and 
Wine as figures of his Spiritual Body and Blood, emphatically 
given for the "remission of sins." it is the Divine operation 
18 



138 

of this Heavenly food on "the faithful receiver, which purifies 
the heart and prepares for the full fruition of Divine enjoyment 
in the kingdom of God ; " He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my Mood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." John vi. 56. 

I will now make a few observations on the expression, " This 
do in remembrance of me ;" On this passage, "Paul" places 
much reliance for the support of his carnal scheme : amongst 
other notions, not very logical, he thinks there can be no remem- 
brance but of things that are past. There is however, no truth 
in this idea; "to remember," is to call any thing to mind, it 
not only relates to past events, but to things present and future : 
" Cruden" says, " the word remember, when referred to God, 
signifies to care for one, to pity ; when applied to men, it signi- 
fies, either to call to mind something past, or, to keep in mind 
something for tfie time to come." My learned opponent says, 
" How we can remember a thing present, and much more, one 
that is to come, is beyond his comprehension." On this hypo- 
thesis, the fourth commandment must be incomprehensible : 
" Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." When Moses 
gave this command, I suppose he did not mean that the Israel : 
itcs should remember the Sabbath days that were past, "to 
keep them holy." But there is something very extraordinary 
in "Paul's" idea, that "in remembering the Divine Spirit, there 
is something too vague for common minds.' 9 According to this 
view, we must suppose that the Divine admonition, "Remember 
thy Creator in the days of thy youth," could not have been in- 
tended for common minds ; the idea of remembering the foun- 
tain of all our comforts, is to be confined to uncommon minds. 

I will close the present Essay, with some general remarks on 
the subject in discussion, reserving for a future number, my ob- 
servations on such parts of " Paul's" last Address, as may re- 
quire an answer. 

We are exhorted by our Lord, John vi. 27 : " not to labour 
for that meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth 
unto everlasting life." The Apostle tells us, Rom. xiv. 17 : 
that " the Kingdom of God is not [consists nqt] in meat and 
drink, but in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, 
— that meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are 
we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse." 1 Cor. 
vii. It is not by any carnal observation that the "soul is establish- 
ed with grace :" The soul of man is Spiritual, it cannot in the 
nature of things be nourished with outward food. " The bread 
that coiiicth down from Heaven — the meat that endureth unto 
everlasting life," are its only proper aliment, this it receives 
not by outward observations, but by the immediate communica- 
tion of the Holy Spirit: "meats and drinks and divers wash- 



139 

ings" are the peculiar characteristics of the Mosaic Law. Un- 
der the Gospel dispensation the real Christian draws nigh unto 
God in Spirit, eats Spiritual bread, drinks living water, draws 
his nourishment from Christ the true vine, and by abiding in 
him brings forth much good fruit to the glory of God, and the 
benefit of his fellow creatures. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, Oct, ii\ 182:. 

LETTER XIII. 

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

The fact that the Apostles practised and commanded wate*' 
baptism, is too plain to be denied or doubted, Acts ii. 38. viii- 
16, 38, and x. 48. Now, in this practice they either were, or 
were not mistaken. Let Amicus take which side he please, his 
system must fall. If h® holds they were mistaken, he so far 
denies their inspiration, and contradicts the Scripture which as- 
serts that they were " filled with the Spirit — spake as the Spi- 
rit gave them utterance," and were " led into all truth :" if he 
holds they were not mistaken, he admits the propriety of their prac- 
tice, and thus gives up his whole argument. So far, therefore, 
as relates to the present argument it is a matter of comparative 
indifference which side he takes. It will however, puzzle any 
reader, not more penetrating than myself, to discover from his 
last, which side he intends to take. 

He is pleased to say, " I have shown that the Apostles never 
baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." If 
he has, I presume his readers have forgotten it. For my part. 
I must beg him to show it again, as it has entirely slipped my 
memory, if he has shown any such thing. The mere omission- 
to record the form in full, no more proves that they did not fol- 
low their Lord's command, than the omission to mention circum- 
cision for the 1400 years between Joshua and John the Baptist 
proves that this rite was not practised millions of times. We 
forget the conciseness of the sacred history. We might as well 
infer they did not " teach" their converts " all things whatso- 
ever he had commandedthem," because every lesson is not expli- 
citly stated. But I ask any candid reader how he can under- 
stand Acts xix. 2, 3. upon any other principle ? John's disci- 
ples say, " We have not so much as heard whether there-be any 
Holy Ghost. And Paul said unto them, Unto what then were ye 
baptized ?" Does not this imply that the Holy Ghost was men- 
tioned at baptism ? After all, however, could Amicus prove 



J40 

that the Apostles never used the precise form mentioned hy our 
Lord, (which he never can) it would only prove, as some Chris- 
tians hold, that that form is unessential to the validity of bap- 
tism ; which would be nothing to his point, unless he could 
prove they did not practise baptism itself. 

On this subject, Barclay has a droll conceit at which Amicus 
also seems to hint, that the Apostles did not baptize in conse- 
quence of their commission ; but out of their own heads, from a 
mistaken notion of expediency practised John's baptism. The 
objection hardly deserves an answer. But in a former essay I 
proved from Acts xix. 5. that they rebaptixed the disciples of 
John, of course they did not practise John's baptism ; and I now 
refer the reader to Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. and x. 48. w 7 hich show 
us in whose name and by whose authority they baptized. " Re- 
pent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." " The Holy 
Ghost had as yet fallen on none of them, only they were bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus." " And he commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" &c. Let the can- 
did reader decide whether they did not baptize in the name and 
by the authority, and with especial regard to the commission of 
their Divine Master. 

And here I close this subject, to renew the consideration of 
the Lord's Supper. 

In my last, it was fully proved that our Lord instituted, the 
Apostles sanctioned, and iht primitive Christians celebrated the 
Lord's Supper. How few objections can be brought against our 
sentiments by the most ingenious disputant, the reader has alrea- 
dy seen ; I shall not weary his patience by reviewing what he 
has answered as he read. It cannot have escaped notice how 
little attention Amicus has paid, both in his last and former es- 
says, to the argument drawn from 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 30. He knew 
that it was not in the power of any honest man to answer it, and 
therefore he very cavalierly, though very wisely, treats it with 
neglect. His manner of treating it reminds me of Paine's an- 
swer to the question whether such a person as Jesus Christ ewer 
existed ? " there is no ground either to believe or disbelieve !" 
This is a very convenient way of getting over, when you cannot 
answer an argument. The fact that the Apostle Paul " deliver- 
ed" and enjoined this ordinance on his Corinthian brethren, 
and that he did so in the name and by the authority of his Di- 
vine Lord, is as evident as any truth in Scripture. 

Want of room prevented my making as many observations on 
this passage of Scripture as its importance deserved. Let me 
remark then, 

1. The Veople to whom this ordinance was "delivered," — - 
the Christians of Corinth. They w ere Gentile converts, far re- 



141 

moved from Judea, the land of ceremonies ; and therefore not 
likely to adopt such an ordinance without Apostolic influence, 
or a divine command. 

2. The Person who delivered it — the Apostle Paul. He was 
appointed the special Apostle of the Gentiles, and had the clear- 
est views of the spirituality of the present dispensation, and the 
greatest fear of any thing like Jewish ceremonies. > He therefore 
would have heen the last one to deliver such an ordinance with-, 
out the clearest signification of the will of Christ. 

3. The time when the Saviour revealed it to him ; — many 
years after the institution of the feast. If as you suppose, this 
ceremony was adopted by the Apostles and disciples from a mis- 
taken interpretation of the last words of their dying Lord ; is it 
supposahle, that our Lord, after seeing this abuse of his lan- 
guage, originating and perpetuating a " carnal rite" in his 
church, should repeat to the Apostle Paul, many years after, 
the very words which had led his brethren and the whole church 
astray ! thus exposing him to fall into the same snare, and con- 
firming the whole church in their gross error ! ! Yet this worse 
than absurdity you must hold, or admit that our Lord intended 
this ordinance should be observed. 

4. Consider also the time when this Epistle was written, and the 
Apostle gave the ordinance this sanction, A. D. 60. Thus upon 
your supposition, the Apostle was left in a gross error for twen- 
ty years after his calling and commission ; and the church de- 
ceived by the inspired servants of Christ for twenty seven years ! 
Remember also, that this mistake was never corrected by this or 
any other Apostle, and the Bible has been left by Christ to come 
down to us in a way calculated to lead every humble conscienti- 
ous follower of the Scriptures into the observance of a rite " in- 
consistent with the present dispensation l" He who believes this, 
will believe any thing. 

Here I rest the argument. On this broad ground, that the 
Saviour instituted, the Apostles sanctioned, and early Christi- 
ans observed this ordinance, I am contented to rely. If Amicus 
can remove this, I will make no account of what follows. The 
above arguments I wish Amicus to answer first, and then I will 
consent that the following considerations pass for nought. 

I would now submit a few thoughts on the utility of the ordi- 
nances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, leaving it to your- 
selves to estimate their value. 

1. I appeal to every candid observer, if these ordinances do 
not honour Christ and his religion. They make religion visible. 
They exhibit Christ as an object of faith, hope, love, joy, grati- 
tude and adoration. They testify to his Divinity, Incarnation 
and Sufferings. Baptism is a standing witness of the Trinity, 



142 

original sin and regeneration ; the Lord's Supper, of the doc- 
trine of vicarious atonement and imputed righteousness. The 
one speaks volumes on the subject of Sanctification : the other on 
the subject of Justification. Both are memorials that " he came 
by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood." 
(l John v. 6.) If preaching glorifies Christ, then these ordinan- 
ces glorify him, for they preach loudly to the humblest capacity. 
If a public profession honours Christ and his religion, then these 
thus honour him, for they are a public profession. They are a 
visible, public testimonial of our faith in Christ, and entire de- 
pendence on him for salvation. If the observance of a festival 
to perpetuate the memory of some distinguished individual, is an 
honour to him, then the Lord's Supper honours Christ, as it was 
instituted for this very purpose to perpetuate the " remem- 
brance" of his death. Surely then these ordinances must be 
useful. 

2. They are profitable to Believers. Is it desirable that Chris- 
tians should know and believe the truth? These ordinances con- 
tinually exhibit the most important truths. They help to pre- 
serve orthodoxy in regard to the fundamental doctrines of sal- 
vation, the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Original Sin, Regene- 
ration, Justification and Sanctification. — Is it desirable Chris- 
tians should be separated from the world?" " Come out and be 
separate saith the Lord." These ordinances require them to 
come out from the world, to renounce the world and enlist on 
the Lord's side. Is it desirable Christians should be united and 
feel that they are one ? These ordinances bring them into com- 
munion with each other. " The cup of blessing which we bless, 
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we 
break is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? for we 
being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers 
of that one bread." 1. Cor. x. 16, 17. These ordinances then 
teach the saints their unity in faith, hope, love, baptism, Lord 
and God, and thus cement them in brotherly love. " For by 
one spirit we have all been baptized into one body (that is made 
members of the same church) and have all been made to drink 
into one spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 13. Here is an allusion to both 
the sacraments, teaching us that the design of both is to unite 
ns in " one body," and obligate us to breathe and follow u one 
spirit." 

Again ; these ordinances are useful, inasmuch as they lay 
Christians under more sensible obligations to live a pious life. 
The peculiar garb worn by Amicus, betokens him a Friend, and 
lays him under a powerful obligation to observe certain peculi- 
arities of speech, manners an conduct, and exposes him to im- 
mediate detection, reproach and shame, if he act unbecoming 



143 

his profession. And there can he no douht that a distinguishing 
mode of dress adopted by any church, will have a powerful in- 
fluence in controling the conduct of her members. So much so, 
that whenever a member of such a church falls from his duty, 
he immediately changes his garb for one which does not remind 
him and others of his professional obligations. Now I am not 
finding fault with such practices ; they have their use. But if 
these badges of profession are useful, upon the same principle, 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are useful. For these show who 
profess to be on the Lord's side, and who not. They lay those 
who observe them under obligations to live a corresponding life ; 
and therefore expose the professors of religion, whenever they 
transgress, to instant reproach and shame from an ever watch- 
ful world. And though their observance of these ordinances is 
not visible except in church, and there only at certain times ; 
their professions are remembered by the world, and are a more 
powerful restraint than even modes of dress 9 as the latter only 
bind their honour and their interest, while the former bind their 
conscience under an oath, signature and seal. The main differ- 
ence however is, that modes of dress are badges of human inven- 
tion, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, badges of Divine appoint- 
ment. 

That these ordinances are badges of Christianity and bonds 
of duty is evident from many passages of Scripture. Gal. v. 3 : 
" He that is circumcised is debtor to do the whole law." By pa- 
rity of reasoning, he that is baptized is debtor to do the whole 
gospel, or is bound to be a Christian. Rom. vi. 3 : "As many 
as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his 
death ; we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like 
as Christ was raised up by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life." See also, Col. ii. 11, 12 : 
and Gal. iii. 27. Baptism then binds us to die unto sin, and to 
** walk in newness of life." Again ; 1 Cor. x. 21 : " Ye cannot 
drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils ; — ye cannot be 
partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils ;" which 
plainly shows us that partaking at the " Lord's table" is & pro- 
fession of Christianity, and obligates us to live separate from the 
world and the company of the wicked. Again; "This cup is 
the new covenant in my blood," says the Lord Jesus, as he hands 
the symbols of that covenant to the believer. By which he vir- 
tually says, " if you are willing to enter into covenant with me, 
take this cup as a token and pledge of our mutual contract; I 
hereby promise to be your God, and you, if you accept it, prom- 
ise to be one of my people." This cup is the sign of the cove- 
nant between Christians and Christ. Every communicant, 
therefore, has entered into covenant with Gt>d, and is under the 



144 

most solemn obligations to live a holy life. Now will any one 
be so unreasonable as to deny that such a solemn covenant with 
God, will operate as a restraint upon professors of religion, and 
arm their conscience against sin ? Who then can doubt such 
an ordinance is useful? 

Again; they lead professors to self-examination. "If thou 
belle-vest with all thine heart, thou may est" be baptized, said 
Philip to the Eunuch. Baptism therefore is a loud call to the 
candidate to examine whether he hath genuine faith in Christ. 
So in regard to the Lord's Supper : " Let a man examine him- 
self and so eat of that bread and drink of that cup." 1 Cor. v. 7: 
" Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep 
the feast not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice 
and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and 
truth.* 9 They thus urge us to a reformation of our lives, and a 
watchful inspection of our own hearts. 

Since then, these ordinances exhibit important truth, separate 
Christians from the world, promote union and communion in 
the body of Christ, lay professors under the strongest obliga- 
tions to be holy, continually remind them of their duty, and lead 
to self-examination, watchfulness and reformation, and since 
they were appointed of God for all these purposes, why should 
we doubt their utility ? 

3. They are useful to the world. They are standing exhibi- 
tions to those who do not read the Scriptures, and confirmation 
to those who do, that without the cleansing influence of the Holy 
Ghost, and an interest in the Blood of Christ, they cannot be 
saved. Baptism says to every unbaptizcd spectator, "you 
have not complied with one of the conditions of salvation," be- 
lieve and be baptized." The Lord's Supper says to every non- 
communicant, " you are outside of the visible church, an alien 
from the commonwealth of Israel, a stranger and a foreigner, 
while Christians are fellow-citizens with the saints and of the 
household of God." 

Thus these ordinances exhibit truth, convince of guilt, alarm 
the conscience, point to the path of duty, lead to prayer, in due 
time to a public profession of Christ, and thus onward to salva- 
tion. Thousands of sinners have been awakened at baptismal 
and communion seasons, and millions of Christians edified and 
comforted. 

PAUL. 



145 

Seventh-day ,uth Mo. 3, 1821 

LETTER XV. 

The limits of an essay for the Repository are too narrow to 
permit me to do ample justice to the important subjects under 
discussion, to give a clear idea of our principles to those who 
have no better opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of them. 
The greatest difficulty I have had to encounter in the present con- 
troversy has been to condense the matter which appeared essential 
to a clear illustration of my subject. My opponent often com- 
plains of the length of my essays, and I confess not without 
reason — if they were much shorter, he would have sufficient 
ground to be dissatisfied — yet I wonder that he should venture 
to express his feelings on this occasion, whilst his own commu- 
nications continue to be at least as long as mine. Unmindful 
however of his complaint, I purpose to pursue my original plan, 
and make the best of my means to convey information to the 
candid enquirer on the subject of our principles. 

Because «* Amicus" said, "that Matthew and John were the 
only Evangelists present at the feast of the passover which our 
Lord attended for the last time, " Paul" attempts to make his 
reader believe that I thought Mark and Luke mistaken in their 
accounts of this festival. — He " looks upon" my statement as 
" an attack upon inspiration" and begs me to excuse him for 
entertaining such a view. — On this account *f Amicus" can easi- 
ly excuse him. The interests of his carnal scheme are so deep- 
ly involved in the establishment of this idea, that he may well 
be pardoned for his attempt. The inspiration of the Apostles is so 
inseperably connected with the authority of the sacred writings, 
that if Amicus doubted on this point, all his arguments might 
be rejected — but this finesse of my opponent cannot avail — the 
whole of my communications evidently shew — that I am no scep- 
tic in the case. I have not only admitted the authority of the 
Scriptures, but I have contended with my opponent for their ex- 
clusive authority, as the only legitimate evidence of doctrinal 
truth. When I mentioned the total silence of the xlpostle John 
on the subject of the Eucharist, I did not mean to infer that the 
testimony of the other Evangelists was incompetent to establish 
the fact, that " our Lord, used some expressions peculiar to that oc- 
casion." The only inference that I intended — I yet see no rea- 
son to condemn — which is, that " If the Evanglist had believed 
(as my opponent does) that Christ at that time had instituted a 
new ordinance binding upon Christians — to be observed in the church 
to the end of time — to be a badge of Christianity and a seal of grace" 
he would not have omitted to mention a fact of so much import- 
ance. The truth is that John wrote his Gospel in the maturitv 
19 



146 

of religious experience, when the inconsistency of carnal ordi- 
nances with the Christian dispensation was clearly manifest to 
his enlightened understanding. In all his writings he never 
mentions one word on the use of Bread and Wine as a religious 
act. If, as my opponent observes "his Gospel was intended as 
a supplement to the other Gospels," he ought to have been the 
more particular on this subject, seeing none of his predecessors 
mention the use of these elements as a new Institution, nor give 
us the least reason to believe that Christ meant to perpetuate it 
in his church. All the plausible arguments used to prove it a 
standing ordinance hang upon this one expression of Luke " This 
do in remembrance of me," a very incompetent foundation for 
the gorgeous superstructure which the sacramentaries have erect- 
ed upon it. As I have before observed, the command of our 
Lord is in the present tense "This do" — Do what? take the 
bread which I have given you and eat it in remembrance of me — 
let your attention be directed to its spiritual import — " This 
bread is my Body" — it represents my mystical flesh, which is 
given for the life of the world — " This cup is the new Testa- 
ment in my blood" — it represents the new covenant, the adminis- 
tration of the Spirit, my spiritual blood "which is shed for you." 
Matthew says " this is my blood of the New Testament which 
is shed for many for the remission of sins." To those who 
recur to the original meaning of the word, " Testament" the 
import of these expressions must be obvious — A "Testament," 
signifies a compact, a .covenant — the blood of the new covenant is 
the Holy Spirit, the powerful operation of which on the soul of 
man purifies it from all iniquity, and remits, not only the guilt, 
but the power of sin. This " new covenant" is expressly de- 
scribed by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, as the min- 
istration of the " Holy Spirit," the " law written in the heart." 
See Ileb. viii. 8. &e. 

The attentive reader of Evangelical History must have ob- 
served that it was the common practice of our Lord to give a 
spiritual meaning to outward objects — to direct the attention of 
his hearers to the divine import of natural things — Thus, to the 
Woman of Samaria, who seemed to have a religious veneration 
for Jacob's well, he spoke of " living water." " If thou knewest 
the gift of God and who it is that saith unto thee, give me to 
drink, thou wouldst have asked of him and he would have given 
thee living water." John iv. 10. When she spoke of outward 
places of worship, he immediately directed her attention to spi- 
ritual worship. " Woman believe me, the hour cometh when ye 
shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the 
Father — The hour cometh and now is w!«en the true worshippers 
shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth." John iv. 21. 



i4r 

23. — Again, When the multitude sought him for the sake of the 
hread with which he miraculously fed them, he rebuked them 
for their carnal religion, and turned their views to " heavenly 
bread* 9 — " Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me not because 
ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were 

filled ! Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which 

endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give 
unto you. I am the bread of life." John vi. 26, 27, 48. 

When they told him of the manna given in the wilderness, he 
replied " Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my 
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven, for the Bread of 
God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto 
the world." John vi. 32, S3 — I could cite many more passa- 
ges to illustrate this view, but I wish to be as brief as the nature 
of my concern will admit, and think it unnecessary. 

Thus we see that our Lord sought frequent opportunity to 
turn the attention of his followers to divine and spiritual ob- 
jects : my opponent pursues a different course — he takes much 
pains to direct our views from spiritual to carnal objects, to in- 
duce us to turn from the divine reality, and embrace the shadow 
- — to depend upon " meats and dmnks and divers washings'' as 
"important means of salvation."-^- But it will not do — Christ 
remains to be the immediate and oidy « author of eternal salva- 
tion to all them that obey him, Heb. v. 9 : "That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh" — outward ordinances can only ope- 
rate on physical matter — they cannot reach the soul — they may 
be observed by the unregenerate and the wicked — they are con- 
sequently no "Badge of Christianity" nor "seal of grace." 
The views of my opponent on this subject are irrational and un~ 
scriptural — they are derogatory to the divine nature of Christi- 
anity, they are calculated to do infinite mischief by creating a 
false dependance on things that cannot profit the soul, they lead 
the mind from the only adequate power of salvation, to lifeless 
forms and inefficient ceremonies. 

When Christ called the bread "his body" and the cup the 
" new testament in his blood" — he was only pursuing his usual 
course ; he was simply directing the attention of his disciples to 
divine objects. Sitting with them at the Passover Supper, and 
being about to leave them, he gave them the parting advice of a 
dying friend — advice, when rightly understood, more important 
in its nature than had ever flowed from human lips. It was an 
admonition to mind spiritual things, to remember the only proper 
nourishment of the soid, " the meat that endureth unto everlasting- 
life," the " nenv wine of the kingdom," the animating princi- 
ples of all true piety. 

I have before stated that the Apostle John has never in any of 



148 

his writings mentioned one word on the use of bread and wine 
as a religious act. "Paul" says in his twelfth Letter to us, 
that John " does allude to this ordinance, and pays it a high 
compliment in his first Epistle v. 8. making it a standing wit- 
ness for Christ. "And there are three that bear witness in 
Earth, the Spirit the water and the blood"-^he omitted to add 
" and these agree in one," but how the Evangelist in this text 
pays + he ceremony of eating bread and wine, " a high compli- 
ment," I am utterly at a loss to determine — the weakness of 
such an argument tends rather to injure than support a weak 
cause. 

I come now to consider the Testimony of the Apostle Paul on 
this subject — "the tourth witness" summoned by my oppo- 
nent. An attentive perusal of the 1 1th chapter of the 1st Epis- 
tle to the Corinthians will I apprehend convince any unpreju- 
diced reader that its enlightened author was not very friendly to 
this ceremony — but as " Paul" considers the passage of great 
importance to him, I will endeavour more particularly to ex- 
plain my views of it, and to shew, that when closely examined, 
it affords no solid argument in favour of perpetuating the use of 
bread and wine as a religious act. That the Corinthians were 
in the practice of this ceremony has been admitted — a fact, 
which, in the carnal and contentious state of that church, does 
not speak much in its favour. Their practice, unless they act- 
ed under divine authority, furnishes us with no warrant to fol- 
low their example. My opponent strives to prove that the 
Apostle introduced it amongst them, bujfc he is unsuccessful, as 
I shall endeavour to show — He asserts that "the Apostle de- 
clared that he received this ordinance of the Lord Jesus" — but how 
he should receive an ordinance from Christ which our Lord nev- 
er instituted is somewhat mysterious ! The Apostle however 
" declares" no such thing — he says "I have received of the 
Lord that which I also delivered unto you — that the Lord Jesus 
the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he 
had given thanks, he brake it and said — take eat this is my body 
which is broken for you &c. Now, the question is — What did the 
Apostle receive I — clearly nothing hut a narration of matters of 
fact, in nearly the same words as the Evangelists record them. 
And what did he deliver ! — precisely the same that he received ! 
Be only related the circumstances that occurred at the Passover 
Supper. He did not assert that he was commanded either to 
imitate this transaction himself or to cause them to imitate it; 
and this was essentially necessary to its institution as an ordi- 
nance. To assert that the words " This do in remembrance of 
me," is such a command, is miserably to beg the question. 
These words were apart of the narration, the very same record- 



149 

ed by Luke. They were the words of our Lord, not to Paul, 
but those who sat at table when they celebrated the Jewish Pass- 
over — and (as I think has been clearly demonstrated) never 
were intended as the ground work of a new ordinance — the type 
or figure of a figure or type." 

But we have other, and as I conceive, irrefutable evidence 
that the Apostle never delivered this as an ordinance to the Co- 
rinthians. In the second verse of the same chapter in which he 
so severely rqnoves them for their scandalous conduct in the per- 
formance of this ceremony — he praises them for the right observ- 
ance of the ordinances which he delivered to them. 1 Cor. xi. 2. 
<« Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things 
and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." Let us 
now for a moment suppose that the Eucharist, as it is termed, 
was one of these ordinances — and what is the consequence ? It 
is either that the Apostle said what was not true, or that he estab- 
lished an institution to promote gluttony and drunkenness. If the 
Eucharist was one of them, he at the same time praises them for 
keeping it as he delivered it unto them, and severely rebukes them 
for keeping it in the most disgraceful manner! ! ! 1 Cor. xi. 17, 
21, 22. " Now in this I declare unto you I praise you not, that 
ye come together not for the better but for the worse" — " for in 
eating every one taketh before other his own supper, and one is 
hungry and another is drunken ! What ? have ye not houses to 
eat and drink in, or despise ye the church of God, and shame 
them that have not ? What shall I say unto you ? — Shall I praise 
you in this ? I praise you not." Upon the hypothesis of my op- 
ponent, the Apostle is a most contradictory writer — which I am 
not willing to believe. 

There has hardly ever been a subject of dispute in the church, 
which has occasioned so much division, contention and blood- 
shed as tliis useless ceremony. Schisms, suffering, and disgrace 
to the professors of Christianity, mark its progress. It began 
after the institution of Christianity with the mistaken Corinthi- 
ans. Its birth was signalized by heresies and drunkenness — 
its maturity is famous for its faggots and its fires — its old age 
for weakness and imbecility. See 1 Cor. xi. 19, 21 : Also 
Fox's Acts and Monuments. And what has Christianity gain- 
ed by it, to compensate for all these disadvantages ? This is a 
most important query. Let the serious candid Christian deeply 
ponder it, and solemnly answer it to his own heart. 

I will now recur to the subsequent part of the eleventh chap- 
ter of first Corinthians and attempt to answer my opponent's 
arguments, founded on some expressions of the Apostle, who, 
he says, " attaches great importance to the observance of this 
ceremony" — " Whosoever eateth this bread, and drinketh this 



150 

cup of the Lord unworthily, shall he guilty of the Body and 
hlood of the Lord" — " Such unworthy communicants bring 
upon themselves Divine judgments even sickness and death" — 
*' to suppose all this importance attached to the use of an uncom- 
manded useless cerem6ny is to suppose the Apostle acting a 
solemn farce." But we will neither admit this supposition, nor 
its consequence, for reasons which shall be shewn. When an 
individual practices any religious ceremony whatever, whether it 
he authori%ed by the precepts of the Gospel or not — whether it be 
eating bread and drinking wine, whether it be offering burnt 
sacrifices, or pouring out drink offerings — if he perform it un- 
worthily — knowing that he is not in a state of repentance, he 
involves himself in the greatest guilt — he is acting the hypocrite, 
not only before men, but in the more immediate presence of his 
Creator — he is said to be guilty of the Body and blood of Christ, 
because, he is in the same state of mind as they who crucified 
the Lord of glory. The Apostle however does not, as my op- 
ponent asserts " attach great importance and solemnity to the ob- 
servance of this ceremony," — he attaches the great importance to 
the hypocritical practice of it, and he might with equal truth have 
attached great importance to the hypocritical offerings of any dis- 
ciple of Moses. " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself." ver. 29. And like- 
wise he that offereth a Burnt offering unworthily, offereth vio- 
lence to his own soul. The degenerate Jews in the time of 
Isaiah made such offerings and were severely reproved : "To 
what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith 
the Lord, bring no more vain oblations — incense is an abomina- 
tion unto me — the new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of 
assemblies, I cannot away with, it is iniquity." Isaiah, i. 11, 
13. From the expressions of the Apostle quoted by my oppo- 
nent, no conclusion can justly be drawn in favour of typical or- 
dinances. He found the Corinthians in a low carnal state — 
attached to outward shadowy ceremonies — he did not forbid the 
use of them, because, they were too weak to bear it — he who 
circumcised Timothy in condescension to the Jews, indulged the 
Corinthians in a practice which they could not yet abandon. 
For all this he gives us a very satisfactory reason. '< And I 
brethren could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto . 
carnal even as unto babes in Christ — I have fed you with milk 
and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither 
yet are ye now able, for ye are yet carnal," 1 Cor. iii. 1,2, 3. 

For want of room to pursue the subject further at this time, I 
will conclude with some observations on a part of 6i . Paul's" last 
address to us, which relates to " Water Baptism ;" my remarks 
on the remainder I will leave for a future number. 



iJl 

My opponent says, " Now in the practice of water baptism, 
ihc Apostles either were or were not mistaken. Let Amicus 
take which side he please, his system must fall. If he holds 
they were mistaken, he so far denies their inspiration." — " If he 
holds they were not mistaken, he admits the propriety of their 
practice, and thus gives up his whole argument. This state- 
ment puts one in mind of the old Spanish proverb, " When a 
man gets wrong, he needs good eyes." My heedless opponent 
has run himself into the toils he had laid for me, and contradicts 
himself, "It is a fact, that the Apostles practised circumci- 
sion, legal vows and Jewish sacrifices. Now, in this practice, 
they either were or were not mistaken — let " Paul" take which 
side he pleases, he gets entangled in his own net. — If he admits 
that they were mistaken, he so far denies their inspiration — if 
he holds they were not mistaken, he admits the propriety of the 
practice, and upon his own principles, we are noxv bound to prac- 
tice and perpetuate circumcision and other Jewish ordinances in 
the church of Christ /.' In contending for the tmlimited inspiration 
of the Apostles in all their practices, "Paul" plainly contradicts 
himself. In Letter IX, he says expressly, that " the Apostle 
Paul in offering sacrifices at Jerusalem at the request of James, 
acted contrary to his own judgment and the pidgment of James, 
and that this was a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices." 
He says that i( Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews" 
and that % Peter disapproved his own weakness" in compelling 
the Gentiles to live according to the Law ! Now I would ask, 
was Paul inspired to act contrary to his own judgment ? was 
James inspired when he requested Paul to offer sacrifices at Je- 
rusalem, in a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices ? was 
Paul inspired to circumcise Timothy, or did he do it because of 
the Jews? was Peter inspired "not to walk uprightly according 
to the truth of the Gospel 1" and if he were so, was Paul inspired 
to withstand him to the face because he was to be blamed ? or, 
was Barnabas inspired when he was carried away with the dis- 
simulation of Peter and the other Jews ? See Gal. ii. 11, 12, 13, 
14. My opponent's system is a mass of incongruity and self 
contradiction ! it falls to pieces for want of cement ; it has 
neither symmetry of design, nor coherence of parts. 

To suppose that the Apostles were always under the immedi- 
ate influence of divine inspiration, is irreconcilable with the 
whole tenor of their history. They were men of like passions 
with us — they were subject to weaknesses and prejudice, and 
sometimes acted under their influence. Their religious judgment 
was not matured in a day. They advanced by a regular pro- 
gression in the knowledge of Divine things, to the state of man- 
hood in Christ. All that the Christian can rationally or con- 



152 

sistently contend for, in order to establish the authority of 
the Holy Scriptures is that they were " given by inspira- 
tion of God," that however the Apostles may in their practice 
have manifested the infirmity of our common nature, yet that 
when they wrote to the churches they wrote under the immediate 
influence of the Holy Spirit. 

Thus we see that " Amicus" can, consistently with the Sa- 
cred Writings, admit the fallibility of the Apostles, can grant 
that they were not perpetually inspired without " giving up his 
whole argument" or any portion of it— without "the fall of his 
system or the injury of its parts." 

AMICUS. 



Saturday , Nov. 3, 182/. 
PAUL TO AMICUS, 

What subject you will discuss the present week, I know not; 
but think it probable you will not yet leave the former topics. 
I shall be happy to find you have at length given your views of 
the Scriptures and of inspiration. As you appear to be exhaust- 
ed on the subject of baptism, and ought, by this time, to be wil- 
ling to relinquish that of the Lord's Supper ; if you will not 
give us your full sentiments on the Inspiration of the Scriptures^ 
permit me to request your sentiments on another subject. You 
some time since declared it to be your object to give a fair and 
candid statement of the principles of Friends, that the erroneous 
opinions of other sects concerning them might be corrected and 
removed. Now it is the opinion of the most judicious men of 
other sects, and so far as I can judge, has been the opinion of 
such ever since your society arose, that you do not hold the doc- 
trine of the trinity. Without justifying the abusive epithets 
heaped upon you by Mosheim and his translator Maclaine, you 
are aware that both of them consider you as denying the funda- 
mental doctrines of the Christian faith. Evans, in his *' Sketch 
and Persuasion to Religious Moderation," says that on some 
f* capital points of Christianity, they have not yet explained 
themselves authentically." Neal in his History of the Puritans, 
speaking of your society in its earliest stages, says "they defied 
the received doctrine of the Trinity." And I know that many 
modern Christians and Divines, entertain the same opinion. 
Now, if we are wrong, will you not set us right. 

If I recur to your own writers, I find nothing but silence, or 
what is worse than silence on this subject. William Venn says 
just enough to show that he rejected the commonly received doc- 



153 

trines as a "gross notion," but no where tells us what he did 
believe upon the subject. Barclay in his long treatise of nearly 
six hundred octavo pages, so far as I can find, never alludes di- 
rectly to the subject/ In his first chapter, after some preliminary 
remarks, he draws this conclusion, (quoted from another) "know 
that the main foundation of piety is this, to have right appre- 
hensions of God." — and yet here the chapter ends! ! — He imme- 
diately passes to another subject, and through the volume I do 
not observe a single hint of any tiling like a distinction of Per- 
sons in the Godhead. Kersey in his Treatise written partly 
" for the information of such as are strangers to the Society of 
Friends/' says not a word on this fundamental article of Chris- 
tianity. Now to me this silence speaks volumes. Till lately it 
could not be proved against the Boston Socinians that they ever 
preached a word against the Divinity and Atonement of Christ ; 
but it could easily be proved they said nothing in favour, or on 
the subject of these important doctrines. And they have since 
avowed their heresy. Take, one of your modern historians 
says, " some of the teachers of the Christian church, a ? *out 
three hundred years after Christ, were led to form a doctrine to 
which they gave the name of Trinity." Does not this imply his 
rejection of the doctrine ? Clarkson says you "seldom use the 
term" and reject it, as also the term "original sin," because 
" not found in the sacred writings." He quotes also Penning- 
ton and Crook (writers of your Society) as giving little informa- 
tion on the subject. The writer of this note has frequently 
heard your preachers, read your books, and examined your 
Apologies, Defences, Portraitures, Treatises, Vindications, 
Refutations, and Histories, but does not recollect a single allu- 
sion which implied your belief of the doctrine in question, — a 
doctrine which lies at the very root of Christianity. The doc- 
trine of the Trinity is openly disavowed by many in Wilming- 
ton who bear your name, and wear your livery ; and one of 
your Leaders not long since declared " that he would as soon 
believe in Thirty Persons as Three Persons in the Godhead !" 
To me you appear to Mend the works of the different Persons of 
the Godhead, making them all the works of the Spirit; you also 
bury the Holiness and Justice of God under the ever prominent 
attribute of Goodness. 'In short, you appear to me to believe 
and exhibit little more or the character of the Supreme, than 
what the Light of Nature teaches, entirely disregarding the ad- 
ditional light of the Scriptures. 

Now will you be so kind and candid as to state the sentiments 
of your Society on this all important subject? In the hope you 
will thus favour me and the public generally, I will not occupy 
the Repository next week, but leave room for your communi- 
cation. 20 



154 

Srventh-day t xith Mo. 10, 1821. 
AMICUS TO PAUX. 

To " Paul's" Note of last week " Amicus" replies that he 
does not mean to be diverted from his present defensive course. 
He sees no good reason why " Paul" should shrink from a full 
discussion of subjects which were introduced by himself and 
which he has told us " are of high moment and of eternal conse- 
quence." The great importance which he attaches to carnal 
ordinances ought to inspire him with patience and induce him to 
lend a willing ear to any attempt to illustrate the subject. If 
we are commanded to observe them, the command cannot be 
weakened by the most rigid scrutiny. Truth loses nothing by 
investigation. If typical ceremonies are not binding on Chris- 
tians, the sooner they are abandoned the better — Their abolition 
will save the administrators of them much unnecessary trouble, 
whilst the people will be left without interruption to pursue the 
great object of Divine faith, purity of heart and communion of 
soul with the great author of our existence. 

In the prosecution of the present discussion " Paul" has as- 
serted that "it is the belief of many of the greatest and best men 
in our country," that we are " a specious kind of Infidels, spuri- 
ous Christians, a species of Deists" — He has not informed us 
who these great men are, although he does not hesitate to rank 
himself as one of them. It might add further lustre tv, the char- 
acter of our opponent if he would mention the names of these 
great men ! 

In a Note under date of July £8, 1821, he has told us that 
his labours in the present case are ** the result of much prayer: 99 
he did not say to whom his prayer was directed : but if it has 
been answered, we have good reason to believe, by the result, 
that it was addressed, not to the Divine Author of Peace, but, 
to the malignant source of animosity and discord. From the 
spirit he has manifested the impartial reader can be at no loss 
to understand the real character and design of the attack he has 
made upon us — It is not to elicit truth — it is not to reform er- 
rors — it is not because he feels a deep concern for our salvation, 
that he comes before the public. — Resolved to defame us at all 
hazards, and with this object constantly before him, he ever 
leaves the plain path of sober argument and rational induction, 
forgets the. dignity of his profession and the solemn nature of the 
controversy in which he is engaged, and uses his pen as a wea- 
pon of detraction, such as the present age has not witnessed ! 
" Amicus" cannot descend to meet him on this ground. To 
seek for matter of accusation against any religious society in the 
private conversation of individuals " Amicus" will not stoop. 



155 

He cheerfully leaves these sources of censure to "Paul" and 
the lowest characters of society. — Weapons taken from such an 
armory Amicus disdains to wield — they hctray not only the weak- 
ness of the cause they are intended to support, hut a want of 
dignity in him who uses them, totally unfitting the highly re- 
.sponsible character of a religious advocate! On scriptural 
ground with the weapons of sound argument " Amicus" stands 
prepared to face his opponent on any suhject fairly brought be- 
fore the public. 

But is it not incumbent on "Paul" as a high professor of reli- 
gion f is it not due to the public ? is it not due to himself as a 
man, now to come forward and point out explicitly the grounds 
of those serious charges he has made against us ? to give the 
reasons why he has attempted to unchristianize a whole com- 
munity ? Instead of resting on the ground of opinion whether of 
himself or other nameless "great men" — Instead of telling the 
world what he has heard this or that individual say — Instead of 
descending into the haunts of scandal in search of materials to 
defame us — would it not be more commendable, more honourable 
by quotations from our approved writers, by a fair recourse to 
authentic documents, at once to prove our heresy to the world ? 

From the alleged silence of our Writers and the reports of our 
enemies " Paul" draws the conclusion that on the subject of " the 
Trinity" we are heretics ! " Amicus" informs the reader that 
this serious charge of Silence stands among the numerous unfound- 
ed assertions of his opponent — Our writers have not been silent 
on the subject — let " Paul" then bring their sentiments forward 
and prove them unscriptural, if he think himself competent to 
the task. " Amicus" will not shrink from the attempt to defend 
them. 

" Amicus" does not accept " Paul's" invitation to occupy 
the columns of the Repository this week. It will better suit 
Amicus to take his usual course. One more Essay will, he 
hopes, close the subject of carnal ordinances; if it should, he 
will stand ready to give our views on the subject of the Holy 
Scriptures, or, as defendant, to answer any objections that Paul 
may have made, or may choose to make, on the subject of oar 
religious sentiments." 



156 

Saturday, November 17, isn. 

LETTER XIV. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

One great fault which I find with your writers, preachers, 
catechisms, and systems is indefiniteness on the most important 
points. You are very precise and distinct on little things ; suf- 
fer no one to mistake your views of forms and ceremonies. 
Long chapters can he written, long discourses delivered in de- 
fence and explication of your discipline, your modes of speech 
and dress, your objection to oaths, wars, slavery, &c. so that the 
most careless reader or hearer cannot possibly misunderstand 
y at doctrines on these subjects. But on the all-important topics 
oi t!?e Character of God, the Nature and Offices of Christ, the 
Work of the Spirit, the Way of Salvation, and, in general, the 
grand Essentials of Christianity, you hide yourselves in a cloud 
of mysticism, leaving us to guess at your doctrines, and, if we 
oppose you, to cast our arguments at a venture. A man may 
read a thousand pages of your writings, attend your meetings 
for years, and while he is constantly reminded of the importance 
of plainness in dress and peculiarity in speech, the danger of at- 
tending other places of worship, the ruinous tendency of Bible 
and Missionary Societies, the uselessness of all outward forms, 
and various errors in other denominations, — he will hear little of 
the infinite Evil of Sin, the Holiness and Justice of God, the 
need of a vicarious Atonement, the total Depravity of the natural 
heart, the Importance of the Scriptures, the doctrine of the 
Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the works of the different Di- 
vine Persons, the Resurrection of the dead, the universal Judg- 
ment, and future Everlasting Punishment ! These are topics 
seMom or never touched ; and when touched are merely glanced 
at as matters Of subordinate importance to the great subject of 
Infernal Light 1 These errors, or these gross deficiencies of yours 
are not mentioned with joy, but with unfeigned grief. And 
however you may suspect or arraign my motives, the Searcher 
of hearts is my witness that my soul weeps over the souls you 
are ruining by keeping them in ignorance of the only true God 
and the salvation of Christ. It is my sincere belief that an 
anxious sinner, who had no means of reading the Scriptures, 
might attend your meetings and read your books for years, 
without either experimentally or speculatively learning the way 
of salvation. 

In my last Note, I stated the reasons for believing you reject 
the doctrine of the Trinity. Your systematic writers say noth- 
ing on the subject ; others only allude to it to condemn it, while 



it is a notorious fact that your preachers never sa^ a word in its 
favour, and private members of your Society treat it with con- 
tempt or ridicule. Every writer of other denominations whom 
I have read, and who speaks upon the subject, takes it for 
granted, your Society is heretical on this point. If, therefore, 
you have any respect for your Christian Brethren of other de- 
nominations, you ought to make your sentiments known on a 
topic which they view as second in importance to no doctrine 
in the word of God. A difference from them on this point will 
forever separate you from their communion and exclude you, in 
their estimation, from the visible church, and the number of the 
worshippers of the only true God. In view of these considera- 
tions, Amicus was requested to state his and your real senti- 
ments upon this subject. This reasonable request he has refus- 
ed to comply with, and has thus given additional reason to 
suspect your orthodoxy on this important point. And I here 
repeat my yet unaltered belief that the God 'whom you worship 
and the Saviour whom you preach are not the God and Saviour set 
forth in the Scriptures of truth. And until you give some ex- 
plicit statement of your views on this subject, the Christian pub- 
lic will be justified in considering you as heretical on the great 
first principle of revealed religion, — that Jehovah is a Triune 
God. 

It is unnecessary at present to prove the doctrine of a Trinity 
of Persons in the Godhead ; it will be time enough when you 
formally deny it. At present I will adduce a few considera- 
tions to show its fundamental importance in religion. 

1. This doctrine is of prime importance because it relates to 
the Object of worship. As religion consists principally in loving, 
worshipping and serving God, every system of religion will 
take its character from its particular Deity. Men could not 
with propriety be called the worshippers of Belial, Moloch, 
Mammon, Venus or Mars, unless their lives were conformed to 
the character of these idols. Neither are any the worshippers 
of Jehovah farther than their lives are conformed to his charac- 
ter and will. He is the Sun of doctrine, and the Soul of the re- 
ligious system. Every thing therefore depends on the nature 
of Him whom we worship. If he be not just and holy, it is 
wrong to worship him as such ; if he do not exist in a Trinity 
of Persons, to worship him as such is idolatry. This doctrine 
then is of the highest importance and lies at the very foundation 
of religion. 

2. Upon it depends the Divinity of Christ. For if there be 
but one Person in the Godhead, as Christ is a separate Person 
from the Father, both cannot be Divine. And as no one doubts 
that the Father is God, it follows that the Son' must be inferior 



158 

to and a creature of the Father. Upon no other supposition 
than the truth of the Trinity, can we with propriety hold the 
Divinity of Christ, unless we adopt the Avian scheme and call 
him God though we believe him a created and dependent being; 
or the Swedenborgian and old Sabellian scheme that the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost became incarnate, which is attended with 
many absurdities. The quotation made by " John" some time 
ago to prove you hold the Divinity of Christ amounts to no- 
thing, unless you tell us who Christ is, and that you mean a 
person distinct from God the Father. To tell us that the Father 
is divine is not enough. To deny the Trinity then, is to deny 
the real Divinity of Christ. 

And the same may be said of the Divinity of the Spirit. For 
if there be but one Person in the Deity and the Father be that 
Person, the Spirit must be something else than God. On the 
other hand, admit the doctrine of the Trinity, and you at once 
establish the Divinity of the Son and Spirit. 

3. Without the Trinity, we must surrender the doctrine of 
Atonement, For to whom did Christ atone ? — certainly to some 
other than himself, even to the Father. But how can this be 
unless he be separate from the Father. To deny the Trinity 
then, to make the Father and the Son the same person is to ren~ 
der an atonement impossible, and thus sap the foundation of our 
eternal hopes. The man Jesus could never have made the ini 
finite satisfaction which God required for our transgressions, 

nor paid an obedience for ns. Being a creature he owed obedi- 
ence for himself. But suppose him a distinct Person of the 
Godhead, under no obligation to obey the law, and you honor 
the law by his condescending obedience, and make him capable 
of atoning to the Father by the endurance of infinite agonies for 
the redemption of a lost world. Accordingly you are consist- 
ent with yourselves in saying little of his atoning sacrifice. 
The " cross of Christ" in which the Apostle supremely " glo- 
ried," forms no prominent topic, if it is even mentioned in your 
preaching ! 

4. You annul his Intercession. Heb. vii. 25. 1 John ii. 1. John 
xvii. For unless he be distinct from the Father, how can he in- 
tercede with the Father. To say that as man he intercedes, is to 
make him as man omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. 
For he who intercedes for the millions of his people must be 
present not only in all religious assemblies, and in every closet, 
but must continually read the feelings and desires of every 
heart ; of course he must be God ; but as God he cannot intercede 
unless he be a distinct Person from the One with whom he in- 
tercedes. To deny therefore a Plurality of Persons in the God- 
head is to set aside another important part of the work of Christ. 



159 

5. You undermine the Mssion and Work of the Holy Spirit. 
John xiv. 26. "But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, 
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all 
things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I 
have said unto you." xvi. 13. " Howbeit when He, the Spirit 
of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth ; for he shall 
not speak of himself ; but whatsoever he shall hear that shall 
he speak." Here the Spirit is spoken of as a Person, the person- 
al pronouns being used. It is not said the Spirit which, but 
" whom" the Father shall send. Nor is it said " it shall lead," 
but " he shall lead you into all truth." The Spirit therefore is 
a Person, a Divine agent who thinks, speaks and acts in and of 
himself, and a Person separate from the Father and the Son, or 
how could he be sent from the Father by the Son. John xv. 26. 
" The Comforter whom / will send unto you from the Father, 
even the Spirit of truth." If here be not reference to three dis- 
tinct Persons, in what language could such a distinction be ex- 
pressed ? Deny then the Trinity and you deny the distinct ex- 
istence of the Holy Spirit and his work of conviction and con- 
version. 

In short, this doctrine is interwoven with all the leading doc- 
trines of the gospel. And no preacher can properly explain the 
way *to heaven, without a reference to the distinct works of 
Father, Son and Spirit. The First devises, the Second pur- 
chases, the Third applies salvation. 

Yet this is a doctrine which you do not believe ; or if you do 
believe, one upon which you never preach nor write, nor speak 
unless in terms of condemnation / This doctrine so necessary to a 
right apprehension of the God we worship, so necessary to right 
Views of Jesus Christ, so essential to right conceptions of the 
Holy Spirit, so intimately interwoven with every important 
doctrine of the Christian faith, you insist upon no more than 
Seneca or Socrates who never heard of it, or than Socinians and 
Mahometans who hold it in abhorrence ! 

The God whom all Antitrinitarians worship, is so essentially 
different from the Triune Jehovah, that were all as candid as 
Dr. Priestly, they would say with him, " I do not wonder you 
refuse to hold communion with us, for if we are right, you are 
idolaters ; and if you are right, we are not Christians," 

PAUL. 



160 

Seventh-day t nth Mo. 24, 1321. ' 

LETTER XVI. 

As all typical ceremonies appear to be incon istent with the 
Spiritual nature and great design of Christianity — As the Apos- 
tle asserts that Christ " blotted out the band writing of ordi- 
nances and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross." 
Col. ii. 14. it is a matter of primary importance in the present 
discussion to ascertain whether our Lord came to blot out one 
set of carnal ordinances, in order to institute another in their 
stead — whether the great Jlntitype in whom all the figures of the 
law were fulfilled, came to abolish the significant ceremonies of 
the Jewish Economy, in order to introduce others of the same na- 
ture, but far less significant than those he annulled — whether he 
intended to put an end to the solemn feast of the passover and 
sacrifice of the paschal lamb, (that awful and most expressive 
figure of our suffering Lord) in order to institute the eating of 
bread and drinking of wine as an ordinance in its room. Be- 
fore I proceed to answer the particular objections of my oppo- 
nent, it will be proper a little to examine this subject. In do- 
ing this, I will first advert to the nature and design of these 
ceremonies, and afterwards notice the mode of instituting them. 

1st. The ultimate object of all the rites of the Mosaic Law, 
was to point out the Saviour, to direct the attention of the Jews 
to the promised Messiah and his office in the redemption of man- 
kind. "Before faith came," says the Apostle " we were kept 
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be 
revealed, wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us un- 
to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith 
is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." The whole ar- 
gument of the Apostle in this passage is remarkably a propos. — 
He shows, first the object of carnal ordinances under the Jewish 
law. « A schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ." — As a 
teacher leads his pupils to the knowledge of things by first teach- 
ing him signs ; letters and words being the signs or symbols of 
ideas intended to be conveyed. So the law as a schoolmaster 
was intended to lead the Israelites to Christ by outward signs, 
typical ceremonies, and figurative institutions, all pointing to 
the divine substance, the great Antitype, •♦the end of the law 
for .righteousness to every one that believeth," Rom. x. 4. and 
secondly, he points out a substitute for them. Under the law 
they were "shut up unto the faith which was afterwards reveal- 
ed." Christ was preached to them by the rites of an outward 
worship, but " after that faith came, they were no longer under 
a schoolmaster." On the introduction of the Gospel, carnal or- 
dinances were all abolished, ami in their room faith in Christ. 



161 

was made the substitute, and faith, true and living faith in Christ 
is and ever will be a perfect substitute for every typical and figura- 
tive ceremony that was ever instituted. See Gal. iii. 23, 24, 25. 

In the fourth chapter to the Galatians the Apostle further il- 
lustrates this view of the subject by pointedly reprobating the 
use of elementary and carnal ordinances amongst Christians. 
•'Even so we" says he " when we were children were in bond- 
age under the elements of this world, but when the fulness of 
time was come, God sent forth his Son to redeeem them that 
were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons," 
— " Now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of 
God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements where- 
unto ye desire again to be in bondage." " I am afraid of you 
lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Gal. iv. 3* 
4, 5, 9, 11. 

2d. We will now consider the mode of instituting carnal or- 
dinances, and endeavour to shew that when it pleased Divine 
Wisdom under former dispensations to establish any outward 
ceremony as a memorial of his mercy, or as a seal of his cove- 
nant, it was always done in the most positive and unequivocal 
manner — not by occasional remarks or by conversation on other 
subjects, but by express command, in the clearest language. Thus 
when circumcision was instituted, " God said unto Abraham, 
thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their 
generations : this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between 
me and you and thy seed after thee, every male among you shall 
be circumcised, and it shall be a token of the covenant between 
me and you." Gen. xvii. 9,10, 11. When the passover was 
instituted, Moses, after describing the manner of observing this 
feast and the design of celebrating it, says, " And this day shall 
be unto you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the 
Lord throughout your generations, you shall keep a feast by an 
ordinance forever. 9 '' Exod. xii. 14. In these cases the com- 
mand was plain — nothing ambiguous — nothing uncertain, no- 
room left by the divine Institutor for any misunderstanding on 
these subjects : and, as might be expected, no one ever after- 
wards doubted of his intention to institute them standing or- 
dinances in the Jewish Church. It is not supposable that a 
perfect Lawgiver would give an imperfect law — would convey 
his will in dubious or equivocal expressions. Let us now re- 
vert to the language of our Saviour when as my opponent says 
lie instituted a ceremony of such extraordinary importance as 
the Eucharist, let us well consider the circumstances in which 
he was placed, let us remember the occasion which called them 
together at the time, and 1 think the unprejudiced reader must 
acknowledge that our divine Lord did not intend by the express 
21 



162 

i6ns which then fell from his lips, to institute a new ordinance 
of perpetual obligation on his Church. The Evangelist express- 
ly informs us that they met to celebrate the Jewish Passover, In 
my former Essays I have clearly shewn that no ceremony was 
then performed, that did not strictly appertain to that festival. 
Whilst as Master or chief man of that feast "and as they were 
eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it 
to the disciples"- — " and he took the cup and gave it to them, 
saying, drink ye all of it." In doing all this he did no more 
than was always done by every Jew who presided at this ceremo- 
ny — so far he celebrated no new instiution, he only performed the 
customary rites of the paschal feast — But in conformity to his 
usual practice, he on this occasion endeavoured to turn the at- 
tention of his auditory to the symbolical meaning of the Bread 
and Wine he had offered them — Of the Bread he said "this is 
my body," this represents " my flesh which is given for the life 
of the world." John vi. 51. Of the cup he says " This is my 
blood of the New Testament which is. shed for many." — In both 
these sentences he plainly alludes to that flesh and blood, that di- 
vine and spiritual food of the immortal soul, of which he had be- 
fore said " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink 
his blood ye have no life in you," John vi. 53. This do in re- 
membrance of me." — Remember whilst you are eating this bread 
and drinking this wine the eternal consequences, the infinite im- 
portance of communion with God, of a participation in my spiritu- 
al flesh and blood, " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." 
Johnvi. 54. 

From what has been said, my reader will be led to contrast 
the expressions used on the institution of circumcision and the 
paschal feast, with those used by our Lord at the Passover Sup- 
per. In the former the command was to Abraham and to his 
seed after him — to the Jews for " a memorial to be kept through- 
out their generations by an ordinance forever ." In the latter we 
find no intimation that the successors of the Apostles were to ob- 
serve the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, the usual cer- 
emonies of the Passover festival, in remembrance of Christ, The 
command " this do in remembrance of me," was only directed 
to the Apostles — not to any after them. We have not the least 
proof from the text that any others than those present were com- 
manded to " do this." The whole of the context shows that our 
Lord and his Apostles were celebrating the Jewish Passover, 
and that he intended nothing further than that they should ad- 
vert to the objects of all typical institutions, the end fall carnal 
ordinances, the divine and spiritual Lamb which taketh away 
the sins of the world. 



163 

I will now advert to the arguments of my opponent on the 
subject in discussion. He says " on this broad ground that the 
Saviour instituted — the Apostles sanctioned — and the early 
Christians observed this ordinance I am willing to rely." How 
weak a reliance he has in this case my readers will readily per- 
ceive. 

That our Saviour instituted the use of bread and wine as an 
ordinance, he had. endeavoured to prove merely by citing Mat- 
thew, Mark and Luke on this subject — and by making a few 
gratuitous assertions without the shadow of an argument to show 
that our Lord meant to institute a new ordinance when he cele- 
brated the feast of the Passover. If any of his readers can be 
misled by such kind of argument, they are such readers as Ami- 
cus has never expected to convince, he has appealed to the un- 
derstanding of his readers, to those who are capable of weighing 
the force of an argument, and not to those who are willing to be 
led by the ipse dixit evidence of any man however high his pre- 
tentions in matters of faith. 

That the Apostles ever sanctioned the use of Bread and Wine 
as a religious ceremony he has never brought any evidence to 
prove. The history of the Apostles as recorded by Luke, gives 
us no idea that the use of wine "the memorial of the blood of 
Christ" — that important part of this carnal ordinance was ever 
observed by them — consequently they never celebrated the Eu- 
charist, 

That the early christians observed this ordinance, he has 
brought no proof except the practice of the Corinthian Church — 
the most immoral, contentious, carnal Church in Christendom, 
a Church whose practice in this case was severely reprobated 
by the Apostle. A Church whose example may suit my oppo- 
nent, but cannot serve as a pattern to any Christian who is de- 
sirous of following the precept and example of our Lord and his 
Apostles. 

Let us now consider the utility of these ordinances — a branch 
of the subject on which my opponent dwells with much compla- 
cency. First he says " I appeal to every candid observer, if 
these ordinances do not honour Christ and his religion ?" To 
this it may be answered that if murder and bloodshed do honour 
to Christ and the religion of my opponent, the Eucharist must 
rank very high as a means of doing this honour. Those of 
'•* Paul's" readers who have made themselves acquainted with 
Ecclesiastical history, cannot be ignorant of the horrible cruel- 
ties to which this Rite has given birth! How many thousands 
of innocent men and women have been butchered or burnt at a 
stake on its account. But says my opponent "it is profitable 
to believers," — " it teaches saints their unity in faith, love, &c." 



164 

Why yes, if contention " is profitable to believers," it has been 
a fruitful source of profit! If animosity and strife produce 
" unity in faith and love" it well deserves the laboured eulogium 
of my opponent — It broke the peace between Calvin and Luther 
— it lias divided Christians under every name — it has for many 
centuries been a perpetual cause of wrangling and discord. 
There has hardly been any other source of as much vexation, 
division and disgrace to the professors of Christianity, as al- 
most every page of Church history abundantly demonstrates. 
It may safely be asserted that those societies of Christians have 
teen most united who have had the least to do with it. 

But says my opponent ** it makes religion visible." This is 
another of "Paul's" curious notions. Religion consists in an 
inward piety of the heart, in the fear and love of God, it is ren- 
dered visible, not by the use of the " weak and beggarly ele- 
ments," but by "visiting the fatherless and the widow in their 
affliction, and by keeping ones self unspotted from the world." 
I ask my opponent to put his finger on any passage in the sacred 
volume, where eating of bread and drinking of wine is identified 
with religion or spoken of as an evidence of its existence. None 
can deny that the unregenerate and wicked may and do use this 
ceremony — what kind of religion do they " make visible" but 
the dark and carnal religion of the hypocrite ? — The very best 
and only infallible evidence of religion in any of its professors 
is a pure and holy life. 

Under a conviction that carnal ordinances were never com- 
manded by Christ, that they are inconsistent with the Gospel 
dispensation, and that their consequences are pernicious, the 
Society of Friends have never used them. On this account they 
have been severely blamed by their fellow professors of the 
christian name, by those very men who have neglected to observe 
outward ceremonies, ordained with more formality, enjoined 
with greater solemnity than any of those observed by our oppo- 
nents. " Paul" in his first Letter on the subject now T under dis- 
cussion, tells us that " a request from a dying Redeemer to all 
who love him, will equal a command." I will now attempt to 
shew that he has dared not merely to deny " the request of a 
dying Redeemer," but that even a command has failed to pro- 
duce any effect on him. It appears by the sacred text that our 
Lord after he had celebrated the Passover with his disciples 
*' rose from supper, laid aside his garments, took a towel, gird- 
en himself, poured water into a basin and began to wash his dis- 
ciples' feet — Peter astonished at his master's condescension in 
performing so mean an office, said " thou shalt never wash my 
feet." Jesus answered " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part 
with me+" Peter saith to him " Lord not my feet only but also 



165 

my hands and my head." " So after he had washed their feet 
and had taken his garments and was set down again, he said 
unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you ? Ye call me 
master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am — if I then, your 
Lord and master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one 
anothersfeet, for I have given you an example that you shoidd do 
as I have done unto you — Verily, verily, I say unto you, the ser- 
vant is not greater than his Lord, neither he that is sent greater 
than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye 
if ye do them." John xiii. 4, 5, &c. 

Now I should be glad to know upon what grounds my op- 
ponent has neglected not merely a Redeemer's dying request, but 
a dying Redeemer's positive command, why he does not celebrate 
the Sacrament of washing one anothers feet ? — this practice of 
our Saviour is " an outward and visible sign of an inward and 
spiritual grace." — if carnal ordinances "make religion visible," 
why has he refused to make religion visible by refusing to prac- 
tice this ordinance ? Can he give any better reason for his con- 
tumacy in this case, than that eating bread and drinking wine 
are rather more agreeable than washing his disciples feet. The 
command of our Lord as the Evangelist has recorded it, is more 
positive in this instance than the command to perpetuate the use 
of bread and wine — it is attended with more awful sanctions — 
"if I wash thee not thou hast no part with me" — " I have given 
you an example that you shoidd do as I have done unto you." If 
" Paul" cannot give a good substantial reason for refusing to 
eelebrate this carnal ordinance, I hope he will endeavour to ex- 
ercise a little charity for his neighbour who believes it wrong to 
observe any typical ceremony whatever, and especially those 
which are not so clearly enjoined as those are, which my oppo- 
net wholly neglects himself !!! 

I will now grant a request of " Paul" made in a former ad- 
dress to us on the subject of Baptism. He begs me to shew that 
the Apostles never baptised their converts " in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ;" and says, " the mere omission 
to record the form in full, no more proves that they did not fol- 
low their Lord's command than the omission to mention circum- 
cision for 1400 years, proves that the rite was not practiced 
millions of times." This sentence gives us a fair sample of the 
unfair method generally pursued by my opponent in the prose- 
cution of his scheme. He first takes it for granted that our 
Lord commanded Water baptism — and secondly that Luke 
emitted to record the form of baptism in full. But he has 
never yet shewn that our Lord commanded water baptism — nor 
never can shew it — And that Luke was not the very defec- 
tive historian that " Paul" describes him to be, will be seen by 



166 

consulting the history of the Apostles — And first, Acts, viii. 16. 
where the Evangelist says speaking of the Samaritans " as yet 
the Holy Ghost had fallen on none of them only, they were bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus" — and secondly, Acts x. 48. 
speaking of the baptism of Cornelius and others by Peter, he 
says, " he commanded them to be baptzied in the name of the 
Lord'" and thirdly, Acts xix. 5. giving an account of the dis- 
ciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, he says after Paul had 
preached to them " they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus" Now there is no other case of Water Baptism mention- 
ed after our Lord's resurrection, in which the subjects of it were 
baptized in any other name than the name of Jesus — which I 
consider a sufficiently clear proof that the Apostles never used 
the form of words mentioned in Matthew xxviii. 19. It is the 
best evidence that any negative proposition can possibly have. 
The only- opposing argument adduced hy my opponent is found- 
ed in a surmise that the Evangelist omitted to tell the whole 
truth, and that there may have been cases that were never re- 
corded at all !!! 

Is it possible that any of our readers capable of understand- 
ing the force of an argument can rely on such weak surmises 
for the support of any ordinance in the church ? 

AMICUS. 






Saturday, Dec. i. I82T, 

LETTER XV. 

OX BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

It will be recollected, that on the subject of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, Amicus has written twelve Letters to my eight ; 
and on the Lord's Supper alone, six Letters to my three. 
No one can deny therefore that he has had a fair and full oppor- 
tunity of defending your doctrines ; and it may be fairly pre- 
sumed, as he has spared neither time nor paper, that he is now 
satisfied to "close the subject of carnal ordinances," and "give 
your views," of the Scriptures or the Holy Trinity. As I am two 
subjects in advance of him, and as I have said nothing on the 
subject of the sealing ordinances for four week past, the public 
will pardon a short reply to the latest objections of your Friend. 

The ungenerous personal reflections contained in his late Letter, 
and his so frequent condemnation of my motives, do him little 
honor, and as they have no weight in the decision of the question, 
they will not provoke an answer. Let the public read and judge. 

Let me first answer his Objections, and then advance some 
further Arguments. 



167 

Obj. 1. "The Apostles practised circumcision, legal vows 
and Jewish sacrifices, and if in these they were mistaken, why 
not in water Baptism ?" A. "To mistake," according to Walk- 
er's Dictionary, is " to err, not to judge right J 9 It relates to 
the mind and not to the conduct. Now in this sense I deny that 
the Apostles ever were mistaken on the subject of either doc- 
trines or ordinances. To admit such a mistake is so far to de- 
ny their infallible inspiration. If they sometimes winked at 
Jewish ceremonies they were never mistaken as to their impro- 
priety, and never either commanded or recommended these cere- 
monies. Admitting, therefore, that the Apostles had practised 
some Mosaic rites, it could not follow they were mistaken in 
their views. But such a practice though Amicus quotes me as 
admitting it, I have all along denied. Any one who has read 
Letter IX. has perceived that almost the sole object of my es- 
say was to prove the assertions of Amicus on this subject incor- 
rect, and to show that the Apostles never commanded, recommend- 
ed, nor practised any of the rites of the Jewish law. That they 
never commanded nor recommended them, Amicus will I think 
allow : that they never practised them, will be evident if we 
consider the common and proper meaning of the word. *' To 
practise," according to Walker, and according to common 
usage, is " to do habitually ;" and " practice," is '< the habit of 
doing any thing," It would be wrong to say a man practised 
Physic or Law, who never administered medicine but once, or 
plead but one cause in his life, and whose habitual profession 
was of a very different kind. It would be out of all propriety 
to say Abraham practised lying, Noah drunkenness, Peter, denying 
his Master, when they were guilty of these but once in their 
lives, and the habitual tenor of their conduct was of an opposite 
character. It is equally unjust to accuse the Apostle Paul of 
practising circumcision, who never performed that rite but once 
in Iiis Christian life, and that under such peculiar circumstances 
as to give the rite no sanction, while he habitually preached and 
practised the contrary. And the same may be said of his once 
offering sacrifices at Jerusalem, at the request of James, while 
he habitually condemned and opposed such offerings. But in re- 
gard to Baptism, he literally practised it, that is, he did it habit- 
ually, from the commencement of his ministry to the close of his 
life. And as he did, so did all the Apostles, not only in Judea, 
but in all nations whither they went. Neither he nor they 
ever condemned the practice, but left all nations in the constant 
use of it. Let Amicus show the same of circumcision, sacri- 
fices, &c. and every believer in Apostolic inspiration will acknow- 
ledge the propriety of their conduct. Besides, they expressly 
and repeatedly recommended and commanded Baptism, Acts ii, 



i6a 

37 . x. 48. Let Amicus show the same of any Jewish rite, and 
I for one will either acknowledge its propriety and divine authori- 
ty, or join with you in denying their complete inspiration. The 
Apostle does propose himself as an example for his converts to 
follow. 1 Cor. xi. 1. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also 
am of Christ," or hecause I follow Christ. Phil. iii. 17. " Be 
ye followers together of me, and mark those which so walk as 
ye have us for an example." iv. 9. " Those things which ye 
have both learned and received and heard and seen in me, do ; 
and the God of peace shall be with you." II. Thess. ii. 15. 
"Hold fast the traditions (or things " delivered") which ye have 
been taught whether by word or our Epistle." Surely the 
Apostle sets himself up as an example, and says "the God of 
peace shall be with" those who follow him. From their wri- 
tings, therefore, (which you have acknowledged to be inspired) 
we prove their practice, that is, their habitual conduct to be a rule 
for our direction. Now, neither their writings nor their prac- 
tice sanction any Jewish rite, but both sanction Water Baptism. 

Obj. 2d. "The Apostles never baptized in the name of Fath- 
er, Son and Holy Ghost, or Luke has omitted to tell the whole 
truth" A. if not mentioning every circumstance connected 
with an event is " not telling the whole truth," all the sacred 
writers are chargeable with it. The Evangelists tell us that 
there are " many other things which Jesus did, the which if they 
should be written, the world would not contain the books." 
John xxi. 25. In II. Cor. xi. 24, the Apostle tells us "Five 
times received 1 forty stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with 
rods, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been 
in the deep, &c." Now will Amicus charge Luke with " not 
telling the whole truth" because he omitted the greater part of 
these things ! A complete record of Apostolic acts would fill fifty 
folio volumes. Amicus can see no difference between omitting 
to observe and omitting to record a thing ! This however is not 
wonderful since he cannot see the difference between a solitary 
and unguarded act, and an habitual practice ; — between winking 
at a fault and inculcating error ; — between tolerating circumci 
sion and commanding Baptism ! ! 

Obj. 3d. "The Apostle received of Christ and delivered to 
the Corinthians a mere narration of matters of fact, and not a 
command &c." The four Gospels, with many Books of the 
Old Testament are mere "narration of matters of fact;" the 
Parables of our Saviour are many of tliem mere narration of 
facts ; but do these therefore convey no lesson, make no disco- 
very of the will of God. Had the Apostle no object in this narra- 
tion? Yes, 1. He manifestly attributes the origin of the Lord's 
Supper to the " narrative" which he formerly gave them — clss 



109 

why does be here mention that narrative? This was one of the 
ordinances which he had formerly delivered (v. 2d. verse) and 
which he praises them, in general, for having kept, but blames 
them for abusing it by the previous suppers of their own. 2. 
He assures them that narrative was true, for he received it of 
the Lord Jesus Christ himself. 3. He repeats the narrative it- 
self — which contains the institution of the feast, and a twice re- 
peated command to observe it in memory of Christ, and a recom- 
mendation to observe it often. 4. He now proceeds to com- 
ment on the ** narrative," and tells them the orignal design and 
object of the feast to " show forth the Lord's death, till he come" 
again. 5. He warns them against eating and drinking unworth- 
ily, lest they be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 6» 
He exhorts them to examine themselves whether they ** discerned 
the Lord's body," or made a proper discrimination between: this 
and other meals ; and then gives an express permission to " eat 
of that bread and drink of that cup." 7. He traces some of the 
sickness and death among them to their profanation of this ordi- 
nance. Lastly ; he promises farther directions when he visits 
them. In what stronger language could he have sanctioned the 
ordinance ; or by what means confirmed and ri vetted that church 
in the use of it? 

Ohj. 4th. "Jewish and carnal ordinances are abolished." 
True ; but these are neither Jewish nor carnal, but evangelical or- 
dinances. " Are they not addressed to the senses ?" Yes ; and 
so is Preaching, Conversation and all the other means of grace. 
You, I believe, reject all means of grace except the Spirit and 
silent waiting. But however the Spirit may sometimes work 
without external means; ordinarily he never enlightens or con- 
verts but by some instrumental outward means, such as Preach- 
ing, Reading, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Take away 
these and the other media through which the Lord addresses the 
outward senses, and for one I should have no hope of salvation 
for the children of men. Upon the same principle on which I 
would advocate Preaching, or Conversation, I would justify 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Words and letters are as much 
signs of spiritual things as these ordinances j and to say that the 
Lord no longer teaches by signs, is to say that he no longer 
teacheth by human language, for this is necessarily by signs., 
4t We are no longer under a Schoolmaster." True, we arc no 
longer under the rigid discipline, the bondage, slavery and igno- 
rance of the ceremonial law; but we are still taught by outward 
signs, such as letters, words, ordinances and providences. 

Obj. 5th. " Christ did not command these ordinances in the 
same words as Circumcision and the Passover, i. e. it is not said 
ye shall keep the feast in your generations.-' Neither did he thus 
<22 



170 

command the observance of the first day of the week as the 
Christian Sabbath, — nor Public Worship, nor Family Prayer, 
nor Reading the Scriptures, nor any other duty that I can find in 
the whole New Testament. Yet you will find some difficulty in 
persuading Christians that the above and many other duties are 
not really commanded. In fact this objection would set aside 
the Moral Law, which simply says, "Remember the Sabbath 
day to keep it holy," — "Honour thy father and thy mother," and 
does not say " keep these precepts through future generations." 
It is sufficient for us that God commands a thing in any way he 
pleases. To dictate to Infinite Wisdom is presumption in the 
extreme. 

Obj. 6. "The Lord commanded his disciples to wash each 
others feet, as well as to eat the Lord's Supper." A. 1. The 
Primitive disciples never understood him literally, nor as insti- 
tuting a sacramental ordinance. But they did understand him as 
instituting Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. It does not ap- 
pear that the Apostles ever practised it literally, or inculcated it 
on the churches as a religious rite. They appear to have under- 
stood him as giving them, under a parabolic action a lesson of 
humility, condescension and mutual kindness. — But they did ob- 
serve and inculcate the Lord's Supper. 3. It does not appear 
designed for universal practice. It is convenient and proper on- 
ly in warm climates, where the dress of the feet is open and easi- 
ly removed, where such ablutions are necessary for cleanliness 
and comfort. But in this climate, and in more northern regions, 
where there are so many bandages about the feet, such an office 
from a Christian brother would be rather a vexation than a kind- 
ness ! — But the Lord's Supper is suited to all climates and condi- 
tions. 4. It does not appear that the Apostle of the Gentiles ev- 
er " received" this as a part of his commission, or " delivered" 
it as an obligatory ceremony. — But he did thus receive and deliv- 
er the Lord's Supper. 

Obj. 7. " It has been the occasion of murder and bloodshed." 
So has Christianity. Only substitute the word " Christianity" 
or " Gospel" in the whole of that pathetic paragraph, wherever 
the Lord's Supper is referred to, and the argument will be of the 
same strength, and furnish an admirable objection (though an old 
one) for an infidel against the religion of the Bible ! 

Having thus answered the ingenious objections of your advo- 
cate, I will now adduce a few new arguments which confirm me 
in the propriety of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

And 1. These with the Scriptures are the only witnesses for 
Christ o)i the earth. 1 John v. 8. 10. "This is the record, 
that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 
To this interesting record we are told "There arc Three that 
bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy 



in 

Ghost, — and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Sim 
kit, the Water and the Blood." The " Spirit" here is not 
the Holy Ghost himself, Tor he is one of the Heavenly Witnesses, 
but the Scriptures, called "the Spirit" because they contain 
" what the Spirit saith unto the churches.'* The "Water" is 
Baptism, which so long and so often as it shall be administered 
will bear unequivocal testimony to the "Record'* above mention- 
ed. The " Blood" is the Lord's Supper, so called because it is 
" the communion of the blood of Christ" the New Testament in 
his blood" and sets forth that Atonement which was by blood. 
These are the only witnesses Christ has on earth. Take awa\ 
these and you leave us in as complete darkness on the subject of 
salvation, as though Christ had never died, and Salvation had 
never been brought. Now it is one grand objection to your 
whole scheme that you labour to set aside all these witnesses at 
once! You degrade the Scriptures by denying them the title of 
the " Gospel," " Revelation," " word of God," &c. and trans- 
ferring these titles to an ignis fatuus within. You set aside 
Baptism so far as it is a visible witness for Christ, and the Lord's 
Supper, so far as it " shows forth" the Lord's death. You have 
perhaps read an allegorical work in which tins world is describ- 
ed as a City with different streets called, "Presbyterian Row" 
" Episcopalian Row" " Baptist Row" &c. and one " Quaker 
Row," where the houses had no windows because the inhabitants 
preferred the light of a candle to the light of the Sun! Now for 
my part I am unwilling to relinquish the light of God's word 
and ordinances for any internal light. 

2. The Apostles address all their converts as Baptized and as 
Communicants, and deduce truths and duties from this circum- 
stance. Thus addressing the Romans, (vi. 2.) he says, " know 
ye not so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were 
baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by 
baptism into death, &c." He spake to the Colossians in a sim- 
ilar strain in Col. ii. 12. To the Galatians he writes "As 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ." iii. 27. See also Tit. iii. 5, and Heb. x. 22. Ad- 
dressing the Corinthians, he says, " we are all baptized into one 
body, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." Again, 
" The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of 
the blood of Christ; the bread which we break is it not the coin- 
mnion of the body of Christ ?" 1 Cor. x. 1G, 21 : xv. 29. Any 
one who will read the context of these passages will perceive 
that he deduces duties and doctrines from these ordinances. 

3. The Apostle stigmatizes Jewish rites, and honours these 
Christian ordinances with noble names. Thus, circumcision he 
calls " concision," Phil. iii. 2 ; the keeping of days, months, 
years and other Jewish institutes he calls " beggarly elements/' 



172 

Gal. iv. 9; other things he calls "will worship,'' Col. ii. 16, 23. 
How differently he speaks of Baptism the texts quoted under 
the last head sufficiently show. What you call " the ceremony 
of eating bread and wine" the Apostle calls the *» Table of the 
Lord," the "cup of the Lord." " the communion of the body and 
blood of Christ," 1 Cor. x. 16, 21. In the next chapter he 
styles it the " Lord's Supper" '(not the "Passover,") xi. 20, 
the " cup of the Lord" and the " Lord's body," 27, 29. Now 
would he have given these high and honorable titles to a feast of 
their own invention, and one " inconsistent with the present 
dispensation ?" Would he have given them to any but a divinely 
instituted ordinance ? 

4. He represents our Lord as commanding it to be observed 
often. The careful reader will observe that in the 25th verse 
the Apostle attributes some words to Christ not mentioned so 
explicitly in the Evangelists, '* This do ye, as oft as ye drink 
it, in remembrance of me." Now would our Lord have used 
this language if he had not intended they should drink it more 
than once, and not on that evening only ? *' As oft as ye drink 
it," does not this imply his expectation they would drink it af- 
terwards ? Certainly this, as well as the word " remembrance" 
implies it was to be celebrated after his death. The only ques- 
tion is how long ? If we ask reason, it will answer forever, as 
it will be more and more necessary for each succeeding genera- 
tion. If we ask the Apostle, he will answer keep it " till he 
comes again." 

5. The Apostle gives express permission (to say the least) to 
celebrate this ordinance. Some interpret the 26th verse imper- 
atively, " Siiow ye the Lord's death until he come." But cer- 
tainly the 28th verse is clear to this point. " Let a man ex- 
amine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that 
cup" x\nd again 33d verse, " Brethren when ye come together 
to eat, tarry one for another." Here is an implied permission 
of the feast. Now did lie ever give such a permission for any 
Jewish or unlawful rite ? 

6. He promised to rectify their errors on this subject when he 
should visit them again. " The rest will 1 set in order when I 
come," And yet he left this church (with all the other Chris- 
tian churches) in the use of this ordinance ! Now either it was 
** in order" to keep this feast, or the Apostle failed in his pro- 
mise. Take your choice. PAUL. 



Seventh-day, izth Mo. z, i82t. 

LETTER XVII. 

In "Paul's" last Address to us, he has recapitulated the num- 
bers of our respective communications on the subject of carnal 



173 

Ordinance.*, and says, that as I have written the most on these 
points he " he presumes that 1 am now satisfied to close the sub- 
ject." — Every reflecting reader will however perceive that ob- 
jections may be raised against the plainest truths in a very few 
words which it may require much time to remove. When the Pro- 
testants contended with the Catholics against the doctrine of 
transubstantiation the latter had little to do, except to quote the 
plain text, " Hoc est corpus meum," whilst, the former 
were under the necessity of shewing from various passages 
of Scripture, that these words were not to be understood 
literally. To illustrate their view T s and prove their position, 
much time and many arguments were necessary. Such is the 
nature of the present controversy. My opponent states a text, 
and pleads its literal meaning. This can he done in a very few- 
sentences, whilst it necessarily requires more room to answer 
and remove his objections. Were I to change positions with 
** Paul" and attack the doctrines and opinions of the Sect to 
which he belongs, I could in one page, state more objections to 
his scheme than he could answer in ten. From this view of the 
case it must appear unreasonable that I should be confined to a 
given space. It is therefore my intention still to pursue my ori- 
ginal plan. It can be of little importance to our readers whether 
•'•' Paul's" objections are all answered in the Letter succeding 
that in which they appear. So that they are answered, as soon 
as the nature of my concern will admit, I hope my readers will 
hold me excused. " Paul" may take his own way — I hope he 
will be satisfied that I should pursue mine. Whilst I may be 
permitted to occupy a place in the columns of the Repository, 
my own judgment must dictate the course that I am to pursue. 

Whatever my readers may think of the merits of my opponent 
as a controversialist, I think they will not deny that he is en- 
titled to the credit of a goodly portion of that quality which 
(that 1 may not offend him by speaking the plain truth) I will 
denominate ingenuity — this very important quality he has often 
displayed in the selection of means to evade the force of an ar- 
gument which he could not fairly answer. He has in the course 
of the present discussion frequently asserted that the Apostles 
were always inspired : that they were never mistaken — this un- 
scriptural position seems to be one of his favorite opinions — 
Yet he admits that *« they sometimes acted contrary to their judg- 
ment" and were guilty o ** a weak compliance with Jewish 
prejudices." — In my Letter XV. I asked a few plain questions, 
to which I hoped Paul would candidly reply. " Were the 
Apostles inspired to act contrary to their judgment I &c." — 
Now 1 suppose he foresaw that if he gave to these questions a 
direct answer he would fall into a dilemma from which he could 
not easily extricate himself — he lias therefore wisely declined a 



174 

reply. If he had answered affirmatively then it would follow 
that the Apostles were inspired to act contrary to inspiration I — 
this kind of doctrine would have been too gross lor general re- 
ception ! If he had answered in the negative, then his own po- 
sition would have fallen to the ground. I am inclined to think 
that our readers will coincide in the opinion that 6i Paul" has 
acted wisely by declining to reply. The saying of President 
Witherspoon had a great deal of good sense in it, " Never 
speak unless ye have something to say." 

My opponent has resumed the subject of carnal ordinances, 
and as defendant, I am reluctantly obliged to reply to his argu- 
ments — I had hoped these subjects would have closed with my 
last Letter, but must yield to my duty as defendant in the present 
controversy — the time spent on them will not I hope be finally 
unprofitable. 

From the history of the Apostles it clearly appears, that the 
primitive believers were in the practice of Jewish ordinances, 
which I have, by citing various texts, clearly proved. — Further 
to illustrate this truth, I will observe, that notwithstanding the 
brevity of Apostolic history, it is recorded of the Apostle Paul, 
that he was twice concerned in the practice of the Nazarite's 
Vow. In a former Letter my opponent says, " the vow on ac- 
count of which Paul shaved his head at Cenchrea might have 
been the Nazarite's Vow, but the Scripture does not say so." 
Now I affirm that the Scripture does say so, in language not to 
be misunderstood. There was but one vow observed under the 
Mosaic dispensation, that was accompanied by shaving the head. 
The consequence is indubitably certain, this vow of the| Apostle 
rvas the vow of the Nazarite, see Num. vi. IS : And hence we 
demonstrate another fact, that Paul, though stilcd the Apostle of 
the Gentiles, was at least twice engaged in Jewish sacrifices — 
for at the time of shaving the head, the hair was to be put " i:i 
the lire which was under the sacrifice of the peace offerings :" 
on such occasions three beasts were slain; a he-lamb for a burnt 
offering — a Ewe-lamb for a sin offering — a Ram for a peace of- 
fering. Thus it appears plain, that Paul in his Christian life 
offered at least six beasts according to the law of Moses. Again, 
the|Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians tells us, that he rebuk- 
ed Peter for his dissimulation in sometimes acting the Jew, at 
other times living as a Gentile, and yet, compelling the Gentiles 
to live as do the Jews. Now the inference to be drawn from the 
premises is, I think, indubitable that Peter practised Jewish or- 
dinances at that period, which was nineteen years after the intro- 
duction of Christianity. — Nor was it until that time that even 
the Gentiles were wholly excused from the yoke of circumcision, 
the Jewish converts still submitted to this Rite. And we find 
from Ecclesiastical history, that on the opening of the second 



175 

century, a large portion of professing Christians were zealous 
in observing all the ceremonials of the Jewish Law. Thus we 
sec from plain Scripture testimony (and I have adduced but a 
small part of the evidence which could be brought on the occa- 
sion) that the Jlpostles actually practised many ceremonies which 
belonged to the Jewish code. That more cases of this kind arc 
not recorded, may fairly be attributed to the brevity of the Apos- 
tolic history. To use an argument of my opponent I might say, 
'* the mere omission to record all the facts of this nature no more 
proves that they did not practice Jewish ordinances, than the 
omission to mention Circumcision for fourteen hundred years, 
proves that the Rite was not practised millions of times." 

My opponent says "the Apostle practised Water Baptism;" 
that he did it habitually from the commencement of his ministry," 
that he never condemned the practice." These are unfounded 
assertions ; let the Apostle answer them himself, *'■ I thank God 
I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius — and I baptized 
also the household of Stephanus, besides I know not whither I 
baptized any other 9 for Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach, 
the Gospel." 1 Cor. i. 14, 15. Now for any thing that appears 
to the contrary, Paul sacrificed more beasts in conformity to the 
law of Moses, than he ever baptized converts with the Watery 
Baptism of John. That " the Apostles expressly and repeated- 
ly recommended Water Baptism" I deny — there is no recom- 
mendation or command, of any of the Apostles, to use Water 
Baptism recorded in the whole New-Testament, except in the 
solitary case of Cornelius and his company — in this instance it 
is said that Peter commanded them and only them to be baptized. 
Not one of the Apostles ever delivered a precept of a general na- 
ture in favour of Water Baptism. In none of their Epistles, 
which were written expressly to promote the practice of Chris- 
tian duties, do they ever command or recommend it in any way 
whatever. 

The use of Bread and Wine, Water Baptism, Circumcision 
&c. are all carnal ordinances. The Apostles in the infancy of 
the Christian church, not only " winked at" but occasionally 
used them all. Even after they perceived them to be no part of 
the "new and living way" — no ways connected with the design 
of the Gospel they condescend to become weak to them that were 
weak, that by the use of weak and beggarly elements, they 
might gain the weak, and in this way they became all tilings to 
all men, that they might gain some — their motives were of the 
purest kind — but some of them lived to see, that indulgences of 
this kind multiplied difficulties and produced dissention, and they 
became concerned to hold up a clear and decided testimony 
against them all — as by a recurrence to my former Essays will 
be manifest. 



176 

"I believe" says my opponent, "you reject all means of 
Grace except the Spirit and silent waiting." This sentence 
clearly shews his ignorance of the people to whom lie addresses 
himself — an ignorance the more inexcusable, because he pro- 
fesses to be well acquainted with their practice. Does he not 
know that without the aid of Theological Seminaries, without 
the allurements of silver or gold, we have more approved min- 
isters of tiie Gospel, in proportion to our whole number, than 
any other religious Society ? — Does he not know, that these are 
frequently engaged in the public ministry and in vocal prayer — 
in a ministry, not in the " Oldness of the letter" and with un- 
feeling formality, but in the animating Warmth of Gospel love — 
hi prayer, not with " vain repetitions as the heathen do," but in 
the life and power of the Spirit ? If a ministry, such as this, 
may be esteemed a means of Grace we do not reject such means. 
Yet I cannot view such a ministry in the light of a carnal ordin- 
ance — it is not used to feed or wash the Body — to please the ear 
or amuse the senses, but to convince the sinner, to call him to 
repentance — to come unto Christ the Physician of the soul — to 
the washing of regeneration, — to the participation of heavenly 
Bread, and of the new Wine of the Redeemer's Kingdom. — Now 
Carnal Ordinances according to my opponent's own confession, 
and according to the definition of them given by those who sup- 
port them, are mere signs or types of something prefigured or 
typified and consequently, cannot he compared with a genuine 
Gospel ministry, which is not a ministry " of the letter which 
killeth, but of the Spirit which giveth life." 

In answer to my argument •' that Carnal ordinances were 
never commanded by Christ in such terms as conveyed an idea 
that they were to bind future generations," my opponent says. 
"Neither did he thus command the observance of the first day of 
the week as the Christian Sabbath — nor public worship — nor fa- 
mily prayer — nor reading the Scripture — nor any other duty that 
I can find in the whole New Testament." This 1 confess appears 
to me strange doctrine ! Can any man read the sermon on the 
Mount, and believe that its doctrines did not appertain to the 
whole human family ? Do not the concluding words of that Di- 
vine communication clearly shew that it was intended for every 
one that should ever hear the sayings contained in it?" •* Who- 
soever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken 
him to a wise man, that built his house upon a rock." — The term • 
whosoever, is universal — it applies to all of every age or nation. 
" If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink."' — The 
terms any man, in this sentence, apply to all men, to the whole 
human race. Let my oponent shew any such evidence in favoui* 
of Water Baptism, or the use of Bread and Wine, and I will 
willingly yield every point in discussion, I will freely submit to 



177 

be sprinkled with water, although we have neither precept nor 
example for such an operation in the whole New Testament. 

In my last Essay I expressed a desire to know upon what 
ground* my opponent refused to observe the positive command of 
a dying Redeemer. " If I then your Lord and Master have 
washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another s feet, for I 
have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto 
you." Here the command is not only clear and positive, but 
plainly relates to the future. Let my reader maturely weigh 
his answer — an answer that I would suppose could not satisfy 
any sincere and conscientious observer of outward and typical 
ceremonies — the conhnand is positive, the neglect of it seems to 
involve the contumacious in the awful predicament of a sepa- 
ration from Christ, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part 
in me." See John xiii. 8, 14, 15. My opponent's answer is 
comprehended under four different heads : 1st. He says that 
" the Apostles never understood our Lord literally." 2nd. that 
"they never practised it literally, nor inculcated it on the churches 
as a religious rite." 3rd. that " it does not appear designed for 
universal practice because in northern regions, where there are 
so many bandages about the feet, to wash them would be a vex- 
ation. " And 4th. tlrat " it does not appear that the Apostle of 
the Gentiles ever received this as a part of his commission or de- 
livered it as an obligatory ceremony." To these I answer, 1st. 
The Apostles submitted to have their feet literally washed in 
Water, and, that they did not understand the command to wash 
one anothers feet literally, rests for proof on the bare assertion of 
my opponent. 2d. How does he know that the Apostles never 
practised it literally nor inculcated it on the churches as a re- 
ligious rite ? " the mere omission to record the fact, no more 
proves that they did not follow their Lord's command, than the 
omission to mention circumcision for 1400 years, proves that 
the rite was not practised millions of times." 3d. Washing the 
feet is a most comfortable thing in all climates, and as there is 
water in them all, it plainly appears designed for universal prac 
tice. " In northern climates, where there are so many band- 
ages about the feet," it becomes peculiarly agreeable, and to 
wash them as often as the Bread and Wine are administered, 
(once a month at least, J would not only comport with comfort, 
but with decency and health. 4th. Although the Apostle of the 
Gen tiles never received this as a part of his commission, for he 
was no Christian at the time it was given — yet it does appear 
that the other Apostles received it and were imperatively com- 
manded to practice it. 

Now all the objections used by my opponent against the Sacra- 
ment of Washing the feet, may be urged with greater force 

23 



17$ , 

against the use of Bread and Wine. 1st. The Apostles never 
understood our Lord to perpetuate the use of Brea*; and "Wine 
as a Sacrament. 2nd. They never afterwards once used them 
literally, nor inculcated their use as a Religious Rite. 3rd. The 
ceremony " does not appear designed for universal practice. " 
— There are many regions of the peopled earth, where millions 
of its inhabitants never saw Wine. It is not the produce of 
their soil, nor of any country within thousands of miles of them. 
To these it would he far more easy to wash one another's feet, 
than to procure a drop of Wine to celebrate the Eucharist. 4th. 
It does not appear that the Apostle of the Gentiles ever received 
any command to use bread and wine as a religious act — He only 
received a narration of facts that occurred at the celebration of the 
Jewish Passover, without the least intimation that he was to 
mimic the ceremony ; neither does it ever appear that he com- 
manded any of his converts to imitate it, as my former Essays 
clearly demonstrate. 

My opponent declares that "Christianity has been the occasion 
of murder and bloodshed." This is a most injurious libel against 
the purest, the mildest, the most Divine religion that was ever 
revealed to man. A religion that teaches in the plainest manner, 
to ** do good for evil, to bless them that curse us, and to pray 
for them that despitefully use us and persecute us." Murder 
and bloodshed have always originated in a departure from the 
doctrines of Christ. The Apostle James describes their origin 
with great precision. " From whence come wars and fight- 
ings among you. Come they not hence even of your lusts V 9 
James iv. 1, &c. That church under whatever name it may 
have been known, which has originated, promoted, or in any 
way abetted murder or bloodshed, was an apostatized church — 
a synagogue of satan, let its } retentions have been ever so high, 
its professions ever so imposing. 

In the next place my opponent asserts, that carnal ordinances 
and the Scriptures are the "only witnesses for Christ on earth." 
Thus he rejects the great and fundamental witness of God — the 
witness of his own Holy Spirit — Be that believeth hath the 
witness in himself." 1 John v. 10. " The Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our Spirit that Ave are the children of God. Rom. 
viii. 16. And thus he cuts off from the possibility of salvation 
all who have not the scriptures or outward ordinances for a wit- 
ness. About seven out of eight of the human family must 
on this hypothesis be sent for what they could not avoid, into 
everlasting perdition — a doctrine as cruel as it is dark and un- 
scriptural. 

In the next place, he says "the Apostles address all their con- 
verts as baptized." I suppose he means " in Water" — If so, I 
deny the assertion. The texts adduced by my opponent in this 



179 

paragraph, all allude to Spiritual Baptism — and in some, ex- 
pressly mention it. See Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Col. ii. 12. Gal. iii. 
27. Tit. iii. 5. I would particularly invite my reader to con- 
sult these texts ; they will shew in a very striking manner the 
dark and carnal state of my opponent, who I suspect must li c 
in some " row where the houses have no windows" to let in the 
light of the Sun, nor any " candle" within as a feehle glimmer- 
ing substitute. 

As a commentator, my opponent has a strong claim to origin- 
ality — let us put it to his credit, to balance his want of consistenctj. 
In Letter VII, he says, " we admit that the Bible is not the Spi- 
rit" — " We do not look upon the Bible as a person or a Spirit, 
but a Book." In his last he has discovered, that though the 
Bible is not the Spirit, yet that the Spirit is the Bible !!! 
"The Spirit (mentioned 1 John v. 8, 10.) is not the Holy Ghost 
himself — but the Scriptures, called the Spirit, because they 
contain what the Spirit saith unto the churches!!!" — With this 
latitude of interpretation we may make any thing of the Scrip- 
tures — If such a looseness of construction were admitted, no con- 
troversy even on the plainest truths, could ever be decided by 
them. But I am persuaded that the serious reflecting part of 
the community are too much enlightened to receive such irra- 
tional notions for Divine truth. Bare assertion cannot pass for 
rational demonstration, nor contradictory positions for the har- 
mony of reason. AMICUS. 



Saturday, December ij, 1821. 

LETTER XVI. 
ON justification. 

Error loves darkness ; truth the light. Real Christians are 
ever willing to avow the doctrines of their faith ; heretics, in 
every age, under equivocal expressions, or by a total silence on 
the subject, have studiously concealed their errors. Hence 
Amicus and all your other writers are so reluctant to make 
known their views on fundamental points. Your views of Inspi- 
ration, as will be seen whenever an explanation shall be given, 
are so different from those of other denominations, that they will 
not acknowledge the inspiration which you hold as worthy of 
the name. And whenever you will state your views of the Su- 
preme Being, it will be found the god you worship is not the 
God of Israel, but the idol of the Deist dressed up with a few 
Christian features. If these opinions are unfounded, vindicate 
■yourselves. You call them " slander," prove them such. 



180 

I will now introduce another doctrine of prime importance, 
upon which you differ from the whole Protestant Christian 
worl d — Justification. 

The doctrine of the whole Protestant Church, and the doc- 
trineof the Bible may be summed up in the following particu- 
lars :■ — 1. God is a Just God, as much disposed, and as much 
obligated by his own nature to punish the guilty as to reward the 
innocent. 2. His Law is a just law in its penalties as well as 
its rewards. 3. This law will justify no man without a perfect 
obedience. 4. All mankind have transgressed this law ; of course 
perfect obedience is henceforth impossible, and consequently jus- 
tification by it impossible. 5. That the Son of God, being above 
all law, and of course under no obligation to obey the law, was 
*' made under the law" for us, that by his sufferings he might 
redeem us from its curse, and by his obedience entitle us to its 
rewards. That His single obedience has conferred as much 
honor on the Law as the perfect personal obedience of all man- 
kind would have conferred ; and His single death as fully satis- 
fied its penalty, as the everlasting sufferings of all for whom he 
died. 6. That a perfect justification from all the charges and 
demands of the law, is now freely offered and promised, through 
the alone merits of Christ, to all who will repent and believe, 
without the least regard to their personal works whether good 
or bad. 7. That to hold to justification either wholly or partly 
by works of our own, or by any inherent or internal righteous- 
ness — in short, to hold to justification by any thing else than the 
obedience and death of Christ is a gross heresy and fundamental 
error. So important are right views upon this subject that 
Luther calls Justification, 6t articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae," 
the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It is the car- 
dinal doctrine of the Reformation. 

Now on some parts of this subject, your views appear to be 
studiously concealed; on other parts, your expressions (like 
your general system) are indefinite and equivocal ; while on 
others the " cloven foot" of heresy is exposed. So far as I can 
understand your doctrines, — 

1. We agree in admitting the necessity of justification ; but wc 
differ in the meaning of the term. Justification ; with us, means 
an acquital, pardon, vindication from charges, pronouncing or 
declaring righteous ; with you it is " all one with Sanctification," 
it is a " making just," the same essentially with regeneration, 
or a new heart. We use it as opposed to condemnation, you as 
opposed to unholiness. We view it as an instantaneous act of 
God the Father ; you as a gradual work of God the Spirit ; we 
as the declaration of a Judge; you, the work of a Reformer. — 
Let no one despise this distinction, for it is the beginning of a 
breach which widens and diverges until it terminates in two op- 



1*1 

posite religions. An error at the foundation saps the whole 
building. 

2. As to the Ground of Justification, we agree in calling it 
"the Righteousness of Christ." We differ in the application 
of the term. By this phrase, we mean the work and righteous- 
ness of Christ, without us, or that which was prepared for us be- 
fore we were born : you mean the work and righteousness of 
Christ within us, wrought at and after our conversion. We 
hold to Justification by a righteousness in the preparation of 
which we bore no part : you by a righteousness in which we co- 
operate. We mean his personal obedience and death eighteen 
hundred years ago : you mean the obedience which he enables 
us to pay, and the death unto sin which he enables us to die. 

3. As to Sanctijication. We both agree that it is absolutely 
essential to salvation. We differ, in that you make it a part (if 
not the whole) of Justification ; we consider it as entirely dis- 
tinct, even as the fruit and evidence of Justification. We call it 
our own righteousness : you, the righteousness of Christ. 

That all may judge for themselves, whether these statements 
are correct, I subjoin the following quotations from your stand- 
ard works. 

1. Barclay in his Apology, condemns the doctrine of man's 
justification "from something without him and notwif/mihim," 
page 213 : He says some Protestants "ran into the other ex- 
treme in denying good works to be necessary to justification, 
and preaching up remission of sins by faith alone, without all 
works however good," page 214 : He condemns the doctrine 
of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for " not placing justi- 
fication in an inward renewing of the mind, or by virtue of any 
spiritual birth," pages 215, 216 : Justification in his view is 
" all one with sanctijication, 99 page 222 : " Christ always re- 
commended to us works as instrumental in our justification," 
page 228 : "That sentence or term the imputed righteousness of 
Christ, is not to be found in all the Bible." " By Jesus Christ 
formed in us, we are justified or made just, 99 page 229 : " The 
immediate, nearest or formal cause of justification is the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ in the soul changing and renewing the mind; 
by whom thus formed and revealed, we are truly justified and 
accepted in the sight of God," page 238 : "The immediate cause 
of justification is the inward work of regeneration, 99 page £39 : 
" There is a great difference between the works of the law, and 
those of grace or of the gospel, 99 page 245. 

2. Clarkson, in his Portraiture, says, " The Quakers make 
but little difference, and not such as many other Christians do. 
between Justification and Sanctification." And then he quotes 
from Richard Claridge, " faith and works are both concerned 
in justification 5" — "as far as a man is sanctified, so far he is 



182 

justified and no farther." "The justification I speak of is the 
'making us just hy the continual help and operation of the Holy 
Spirit," — our justification is proportionable to our sanctifica- 
tion." Vol. II. page 280. 

3. Kersey, in his Treatise, says " a man may he sanctified in 
part and justified in part, and he is only justified in the same 
proportion as he is sanctified, consequently entire justification 
must be because of entire sanctification." He speaks of "the 
imputative righteousness of Christ, supplying what on our part 
tvas lacking, on condition of our obedience to the manifestation 
of the Spirit." p. 59, 60. 

Such is your doctrine ! We are to he justified " not by Christ 
without us, but within us," — not by " faith alone," but by "gos- 
pel works." Justification is a " making just," a " renewing of 
the mind," — the same with sanctification." A doctrine so dan- 
gerous every humble believer in Christ should reject without 
hesitation. 

1 . Because it is the perversion of an important scriptural term. 
That "to justify" is not to "make just" or "sanctify" but to 
declare righteous, to vindicate, to acquit is evident from Scripture, 
Lexicons and common usuage. How it is commonly used may 
be inferred from Walkers Dictionary. To justify is "to clear 
from imputed guilt, to absolve from an accusation, to defend, to 
vindicate, to free from past sins by pardon." That it is used in 
the same sense in Scripture the following passages will prove. 
Deut. xxv. 1. "If there be a controversy between men, and 
they come in to judgment that the judges may judge them ; then 
they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked." That 
is, according to your doctrine, they shall sanctify the righteous ! 
Job ix. 20. If I justify myself ("sanctify") my own mouth 
shall condemn me, if I say I am perfect it shall also prove me per- 
verse." Here justification is an act of the "mouth" the same 
with saying of a man "he is perfect." Job xxvii. 5. " God 
forbid that I should justify you."" xxxiii. 32: "If thou hast 
any thing to say, speak, for I desire to justify thee. Prov. xvii. 
5 : "He that justijieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the 
just is an abomination to the Lord." Justification is here op- 
posed to condemnation and not as you say, to unholiness. See 
also Ex. xxiii. 7. Isa. v. 23. Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 29. x. 29. 
xvi. 15. By which it will appear that you use the term justifi- 
cation (as you do Baptism and many other terms) out of its com- 
mon and proper sense, and different from that in which it is used 
hy infinite Wisdom in the word of God. 

2. You confound two things which are evidently distinct. 
Justification and Sanctification are as distinct as Pardon and Re- 
novation, or forgiveness and virtue. The Judges in our courts 



183 

have justified many a man, i. e. declared him righteous; but 
they never yet sanctified a man, or made him holy ! 

3. This righteousness within us by which you suppose us jus- 
tified you must attribute either to ourselves or to God. If to our- 
selves, then we are justified by our own works, in contradiction 
to the whole Bible; if to God, then we are not justified by the 
righteousness of Christ, but of the Spirit ! For the Spirit is un- 
doubtedly the Author of all holiness in the heart. Thus you 
confound the Son and Spirit and contradict the Scripture. Thus 
Amicus, Letter IX. calls the Holy Spirit "the justifer ;" and 
Letter XV. says " the blood of the new covenant, (Matt. xxvi. 
28.) is the Holy Spirit, the powerful operation of which on the 
soul of man remits not only the guilt but the power of sin." 

The Holy Spirit " remits guilt" — sanctiiication the same with 
remission of sins !! This is either a barbarous " murder of the 
King's English" or a gross misrepresentation of the way of life. 
The word " remit" occurs, I believe but once in the New Testa- 
ment, and that is in John xx. 23 : " Whose soever sins ye remit 
they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain , 
they are retained." Here the word manifestly signifies to /or- 
give or declare forgiven, — precisely the sense in which we use 
the term. Now to talk of the Holy Spirit's fwgiving sin, or 
justifying from sin, is a most barbarous abuse both of the terms 
and the doctrines of the gospel. You first substitute the light 
within for the Third Person of the Trinity ; and then to this de- 
lusive light attribute the whole work of salvation. Of this more 
hereafter. PAUL. 



Seventh-day, izthAlo. 22, 1821. 

LETTER XVIII. 

Ix " Pauls" last Letter he charges Amicus with a "reluctance 
to make known our views on fundamental points." Upon what 
ground such an accusation is founded is best known to himself. 
When he first opened his views on Water Baptism, he called it 
" a question of high moment and of eternal consequence" — of 
course it must be a "fundamental point." Carnal ordinances 
he stiled " badges of Christianity and seals of grace." Now of 
what importance is grace if it be not sealed to us? How can a 
man be a christian if he wear not the badge? On these questions 
of high moment " Amicus" has shewn no reluctance to communi- 
cate our views — Whether he will manifest any on the other fun- 
damentals of Christianity time will determine. Amicus thinks 
it will be proper to answer old charges before we enter on those 
of recent date. 



184 

It is a subject of the most agreeable reflection to those who 
desire the prosperity of Truth that the present time is distin- 
guished by a Spirit of free enquiry on religious subjects. The 
day has dawned in the light of which many have discovered that 
the dogmas and decisions of Synods and Councils are no longer 
to be deemed of equal authority with the plain doctrines of the 
New Testament; that the Inspired Penmen were qualified to 
record these doctrines with sufficient clearness for the purposes 
intended, without the intervention of a learned clergy to make 
them understood. The greatest obstacle that ever opposed the 
progress of Truth, was the belief imposed on the members of the 
church that they were bound to follow the opinions of frail 
erring men — men liable to err, not only from the common weak- 
ness of the human faculties, but from the powerful bias of pecuni- 
ary interest. It was the beginning of a very dark night to the 
church when Theological Philosophy was introduced as the Ex- 
pounder of the sacred Text. Then was "the abomination of 
desolation seen standing in the Holy place." Like an Arch en- 
chantress she waved her deadly wand and every green thing 
withered in her presence. "The native and beautiful simplicity 
of the gospel," says Mosheim, "was gradually effaced by the 
laborious efforts of human learning and the dark subtleties of 
natural science" — and false doctrine and corrupt practice took 
its place. See Eccles. History Vol. I. Part 2. Chapter iii. 
Then was the Apostolic prophecy fulfilled, "The time will come 
when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own 
lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching 
ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall 
be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. iv. 3. Then did the professed 
followers of Christ forsake him " the fountain of living Waters, 
and hew out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that could 
hold no Water," Jer. ii. 13. Then was the kingdom of anti- 
christ exalted and the chains of superstition so rivetted on the 
benighted followers of a corrupt and mercenary Priesthood, that 
more than fifteen hundred years have passed away leaving a 
large proportion of the professors of Christianity still shackled 
with their fetters and bowed under their yoke. 

The friends of "pure and undefiled Religion" will therefore 
hail the present day as the opening of a new era — a time when 
the individual responsibility of its professors is beginning to be 
extensively felt — a time when they will judge for themselves of 
the doctrines held out to their acceptance. " No man can re- 
deem his brother nor give to God a ransom for his soul." Psalm 
xlix. 7. No man nor set of men can discharge us from the im- 
perious duty of seeking the Truth for ourselves, — and if in this 
search, under a sense of our own insufficiency, we humbly " ask 
of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not," 



185 

lames i. 5. I have no doubt that the present age will he mark- 
ed, not only hy a spirit of free inquiry, but by the tottering and 
downfall of many gross errors and grievous impositions which 
have long disgraced the profession of the Gospel of Christ. 

I have premised these observations as an introduction to the 
subject of "Paul's" addresses to us on "Internal Light," in 
treating of which, I hope to shew that a recurrence to first prin- 
ciples, to the teaching, the leading, the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit in the soul, is the only effectual way by which the church 
of Christ can ever wholly recover from the apostacy, and be re- 
stored to the " beautiful simplicity" and Divine excellency of 
her primitive state. 

" Paul" in his first addresses to us on this subject, has very 
justly remarked that "in all unscriptural systems there is a 
radical error — some fundamental principle upon which as upon 
a Corner Stone the whole system rests, to loosen this, is to sap 
the whole building, a blow here, is a blow at the root." My 
principle object in this Essay will be to shew that the doctrine 
of the Society of Friends on " Internal Light" is the clear doc- 
trine of the inspired Volume — that a blow struck at it, is a blow 
struck at Christ "the author and finisher" of all true faith, to 
sap it, is to sap the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets ; 
Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Heb. xii. 2 : 
Eph. ii. 20. 

After an attentive perusal of the Bible, after many years of 
deliberation on its contents, it clearly appears to me that the 
doctrine of "Internal Light" — of an immediate communication 
between God and his rational creation through the Holy Spirit, is 
one of the plainest and most prominent positions of the inspired 
penmen. There is hardly a page or chapter of the New Testa- 
ment that does not substantiate this view, as I think can he 
clearly demonstrated. It was promised by the prophets — it was 
preached by Christ and his Apostles — it was fulfilled in the 
primitive Christians, and remains to be the faith an consola- 
tion of all holy men down to the present day- — the truth of which 
I will now attempt to prove. 

First — It was promised by the prophets. — "Behold the days 
come saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the 
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" — and " this is the 
Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those 
days, saith the Lord. — I will put my laws into their mind and 
write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God and they 
shall be to me a people." Jeremiah xxx. 31, 32. Heb. viii. 8, 
9, 10. The prophet Isaiah predicting the future glory of the 
church, gives the same sentiment in his usual sublime and 
beautiful manner, " the Sun shall no more be thy light by day 
24 



186 

neither for brightness shall the moon give light nnto thee, but 
the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light and thy God thy 
glory — thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon 
withdraw herself, for the Lord shall he thine everlasting light and 
the days of thy mourning shall he ended." Isaiah lx. 19, 20. 
"Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine 
eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before 
the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles and the 
glory of thy people Israel." Luke ii. 29, 30, 31, 32. 

Secondly — It was preached by Christ and his Apostles — 
When our Lord was demanded by the Pharisees when the king- 
dom of God should come, he replied — "The kingdom of God 
cometh not with observation, neither shall they say, lo ! here, or 
lo ! there — for behold the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 
xv ii. 20. A kingdom is understood of any place where a king 
reigns — where his laws are promulgated, and where allegiance 
to his government is expected — this in a Spiritual sense is in the 
soul of every real Christian. This is that kingdom which is so 
variously and beautifully described by our Lord under the simili- 
tude of " a grain of mustard seed," the " little leaven that was 
hid in the meal till the whole was leavened," — the seed that the 
" sower went forth to sow," — and a number of other significant 
parables all pointing clearly to Christ and his work in the soul, 
to that Divine "internal light," that " lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world." John i. 9." This is that kingdom of 
which our Lord spake when he said "Verily I say unto you 
whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, 
he shall not enter therein." He that will not receive and obey 
this light in the humble, submissive, tractable disposition of a 
little child cannot be a citizen of this kingdom. 

To this " Internal Light" the Evangelist John bore a clear 
and striking testimony in the first chapter of his gospel : " In 
the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and 
the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God 
— All things were made by him, and without him was not any 
thing made that was made — in him was life, and the life was 
the light of men — There was a man sent from God whose name 
was John, the same came for a Witness, to bear Witness of 
the light that all men through it might believe. He [John] was 
not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light — that 
was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the 
world :" This same divine light is railed by Christ, the " Com- 
forter" that was to " abide with his disciples forever — even the 
Spirit of Truth," for says he, " he dwelleth with you, and shall 
be in you ; and at that day ye shall know that I am in my 
Father, and you in me and / in you. He that abidetli in me, 
and linhim, the same -bringeth forth much fruit, for without me 






ye can do nothing." " I am the light of the 'world, he that fbl- 
loweth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of 
life." John viii. 12. "I am come a light into the world, that 
whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness, John xii. 

Thirdly — It was fulfilled in the primitive Christians. — The 
Apostle to the Romans, chap. viii. 9. &c. tells them that they 
" are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of 
God dwelleth in them. Now if any man have not the Spirit of 
Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in ijou, the body is 
dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteous- 
ness — But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." 
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glo- 
ry of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the 
hope of glory," Col, i. 27. To the Ephesians the Apostle bears a 
memorable testimony to this blessed "internal light." "All things 
that are reproved are made manifest by the light, tor whatsoever 
doth make manifest is light, wherefore he saith, awake thou that 
sleepest, and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light." 

If these passages do not clearly demonstrate, that the Apos- 
tles and primitive Christians were the advocates of "Internal 
Light" — that they well understood its divine nature and blessed 
effects, I confess I do not understand their language. The har- 
mony of the prophecies concerning it, with the testimonies of 
Christ and the doctrines of the Apostles, is so manifest, that I 
think every candid reader must perceive it. 

" In all unscriptural systems, there is a radical error."' — Any 
system therefore, that rejects Christ as the " internal light" of 
the soul, as the divine and immediate fountain of spiritual know- 
ledge is " unscriptural" and "radically erroneous." "That 
which may be known of God, saith the Apostle, is manifest in 
men, for God hath shewed it unto them," Rom. i. 19. "Now 
we have received, not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which 
is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given 
to us of God — for no man knoweth the things of God, but the 
Spirit of God. The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritu- 
ally discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 12, 14. 

The doctrines preached by the Apostles in these passages, we 
hold to be "fundamental principles" of Christianity — upon them, 
as upon a corner stone, our whole system rests. " Paul" has 
attempted "to loosen it" — " to sap the whole building" — he has 
"struck a blow at it" — he has dared to vilify it by opprobrious 
names — " Christ in man the hope of glory," he calls " an ignus 
fatuus within." " Christ the true light that lighteth every man 
that cometh into the world," he considers wholly external and. 



188 

altogether unworthy of attention in any way, except through the 
medium of the outward senses. Now I think it is evident, that 
this is a doctrine of Antichrist ; " Every Spirit that confesseth 
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. And 
this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it 
should come, and even now already it is in the world,'" 1 John 
iv. 3. Every man who can seriously declare that he never knew 
any thing of this " Internal light, making manifest his sin — re- 
proving him for evil — calling him to repentance — rewarding 
him for obedience- — consoling him in affliction — illuminating his 
understanding clearly to discern between good and evil — 
strengthening him in the practice of virtue, and carrying on the 
work of sanctification in his soul, has no just title to the name 
of a christian, let him assume what character he may. 

The doctrine of my opponent on this subject, has ever been fa- 
tal to the interests of Christianity — it was the ground and cause 
of the church's apostacy so early after the Apostolic age — it led 
its professors from a dependance on the great Head of the church, 
to a dependance on poor frail man — it caused them to turn away 
from the glorious Gospel Luminary, to wander in dark and 
crooked paths of human contrivance — and I confidently venture 
to express the sentiment, that the church will never be restored 
to the beauty, the excellency, the majesty, of her primitive state, 
until she retrace her steps — until she return to the spot where 
she first aberrated^ — until she reject the opinions of fallible men, 
the " blind leaders of the blind," and rallying again under the 
Captain of Salvation, is led by him who hath said, 6i I am the 
Light of the Would, he that followeth me shall not walk in 
darkness, but shall have the light of life." AMICUS. 



*:%?. 



LETTER XVII. 



ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 



Saturday, Dec, 29, 18211 



Wtth Amicus, the writer of these Letters cordially rejoices in 
the signs of the times. He hails " the spirit of free inquiry" 
which prevails and the increasing " light" every where diffus- 
ing itself as the harbinger of the "downfall of many gross errors 
and grievous impositions which have long disgraced the profes- 
sion of the gospel of Christ." He confidently anticipates the 
period when all opposition to the Bible, to the Trinity, to divine- 
ly appointed Ordinances, to the Sabbath, to the Ministry of re- 
conciliation, to the use of the Means of Grace, to Bible and 
Missionary societies, to the instruction of the Young in Sab- 
bath Schools, and to the Conversion of the Heathen shall cease 



189 

forever ,* and all the manifold errors arising from undue depend* 
ance on Internal light, to the degradation of the Scriptures, 
shall no more delude mankind. 

6i What rule hath God given to direct us in religion — the 
Scriptures or internal light ?" is the question now to be discuss- 
ed. That there is such a thing as internal light, and also a 
*-« communication between God and his rational creation through 
the Holy Spirit," has never been denied by us, nor can be de- 
nied by any Christian. This is not a doctrine in dispute. And 
therefore, the whole of your last communication is nothing to the 
point, is los+ labour, has nothing more to do with an answer to 
" Paul's Addresses on the subject of Internal Light," than a 
dissertation upon Chymistry ! The question in dispute between 
your small Society and the Christian world, is simply this : 
" Has God given to every man an internal light which is a safer 
Guide, Rule and Standard m religion, than the Holy Scriptures ?" 

That the question may be fairly understood, it may be pre- 
mised : 1st. You agree with us that there ought to be some Rule, 
some supreme, infallible standard of religious truth. 2. That 
God has given such an infallible rule and standard 3. That this 
standard is clearly designated in the Scriptures. (All his quota- 
tions in his last essay from Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, 
imply Amicus' willingness that the Bible should decide what this 
standard is.) Therefore, 4. The true question is whether the Bi- 
ble makes itself the standard, or gives that honor to internal light. 
Lest the discussion should lead us into too wide a field, I would 
observe further; the question is not, 1. Whether there be any 
internal moral light in man. This we admit, but deny that equal 
light, or light sufficient for salvation is given to all mankind. 
2. Nor is the question, whether the Spirit sometimes acts as an 
internal guide. This we admit ; but deny that He is given to 
all the world, or that every man has a sufficiency of the Spirit to 
he saved. 3. Nor whether the Spirit is of any use in the inter- 
pretation of the Bible. We admit the Spirit is of great use in 
revealing mysteries, in appltjing the word with power to our 
hearts : in short, we hold that the influences of the Spirit are 
essential to an experimental saving knowledge of the Scriptures. 
Nor 4. Whether the Spirit is an unerring guide to all whom He 
undertakes to lead. But whether we have the Spirit is the 
question ; whether we can know that we have the Spirit, or fol- 
low the Spirit, except by the Scriptures. Nor 5. Whether the 
Bible is a good book, the best book in the world. This you ad- 
mit, and when it suits you, say many fine things in its praise. 
But 6. The question is, whether what one of your best writers 
asserts is true : to wit, "respecting the particular dutv *of indivi- 
duals, every one has in his own breast a nearer and more certain rule 
w guide of conscience than the Scriptures," Phipps on Man, p. 13S-. 



190 

The above quotation is a clear and correct statement of your 
views upon this subject. Having thus cleared the way of extra- 
neous matter, I now proceed to show, that the Bible, and not 
some independent inward light, is the Rule and Test of truth. 

1. Amicus tacitly admits the fact. Reader, to what does he 
appeal for the decision of this question ? Does he direct you to 
internal light or to the Scriptures ? Manifestly to the latter. 
Why did he not appeal to his own or your internal light ? Be- 
cause he does not know enough of yours, nor you of his internal 
light. Nothing so vague and ill understood can ever be a com- 
mon standard. If there be a " nearer and more certain rule of 
conscience than the Scriptures," — why does he appeal to Scrip- 
ture ? — why overlook a " near and certain" for a remote and 
doubtful rule ? Let him answer it. 

2. The Scriptures never direct us to follow internal light as 
our highest rule and standard. Let the reader review the texts 
quoted by Amicus, and ask, do they prove any thing more than 
this, that God enlightens some men with his Holy Spirit? A truth 
never denied by any Christian. Not a single text directs us to 
follow any internal light as our highest rule of faith and prac- 
tice. Nor can such a text he quoted from the Bible. We ac- 
knowledge that in the days of Extraordinary Inspiration, Pro- 
phets and Apostles received immediate messages from heaven on 
subjects not contained in previous Scripture. But since extra- 
ordinary inspiration has ceased ; since God has given us his 
" whole counsel," and the cannon of Scripture is closed, such 
revelations are no longer to be expected, believed or obeyed. 
Amicus cannot quote a text from Prophets, Evangelists or Apos- 
tles in which common Christians, or men in general are ordered 
to follow any other rule than the written word. 

3. Your doctrine would nullify the Scriptures. If God has 
given to all mankind a guide, independent of the Scriptures, one 
which is a " more near and certain guide," why all this addi- 
tional expense of Inspiration and Miracles to establish and con- 
firm a rule of which we have no need ? If we have in all our 
hearts a better rule than Scripture, wherein are we benefitted by 
a preached and written gospel ? Wherein are we more highly 
favored than the heathen nations ? If God has given to man a 
superior all sufficient light in his own breast, where was the need 
of a written revelation at all? Thus you "make the word of 
God of none effect by your traditions." 

4. The Scriptures were written for the very purpose that they 
might be our rule. Luke, addressing Theophilus, says in the 
opening of his gospel, "I wrote unto thee that thou mightest know 
the certainty of the things wherein thou hast been instructed." 
Luke i. 14. Paul concludes his Epistle to the Galatians, " as 
many as walk according to this Rule, peace be on them and the 



191 

Israel of God." John, near the close of his Gospel, says 
" These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus is 
the Christ." &c. John xx. 31. And in his first Epistle. "These 
things have I written unto you that believe on the Son of God, 
that ye may know that ye have eternal life." 1 John v. 13. see 
also II. Peter 1. 15. The great object in giving the Scriptures 
is here stated, to wit, to be the Rule and firm foundation of his 
people's faith. The Apostles were no Quakers, or instead of 
giving Christians a written rule, they would have directed them 
to their internal light. 

5. We are commanded by the Prophet to try all doctrine and 
all light by the Law and Testimony. Isa. viii. 19. 20. (This ar- 
gument was hinted at in Letter. III. but for a reason assigned 
in a subsequent " Apology." I shall feel at liberty to consider 
it and every other argument in that number more at large. 
Through some unaccountable mistake, instead of a correct copy, 
the writer sent to press some rough Preparatory Notes.) 
" And when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have 

familiar Spirits and unto wizzards that peep and that mutter ; 
should not a people seek unto their God ? To the law and the Tes- 
timony ; if they (these spiritual guides) speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them." Here every 
word is full of meaning. There were persons in those days 
who pretended some internal unwritten light by which they 
could give more information respecting things unseen than the 
oracles of God. To follow such light is here condemned as 
idolatry ; and the people are commanded to seek light from God . 
How ? By resorting to the Law and Testimony. By these all 
spirits and doctrines must be tried ; and should any teacher con- 
tradict the written law, his " light" was false, was darkness. 
This text clearly proves the Scriptures to be the supreme Stand- 
ard, Judge and Rule of truth. By this Rule, we of other de- 
nominations try your Preachers and your Books, and as you 
contradict the Law and Testimony, we conclude, whatever you 
profess " there is no light" in you. 

6. Inquirers after salvation were never directed to look for 
guidance to internal light, but to the written word. Should a 
sinner come to you asking " what shall I do to be saved," — 
instead of telling him " Repent and be baptized," you would di- 
rect him to internal light ; instead of telling him to " believe 
the record God hath given of his Son," you would tell him to 
" follow the openings in his heart." Not so our Lord and his 
Apostles. When one asked him " Master, w ; ;at shall I do to 
inherit eternal life ? He said unto him, What is written in the 
law ? How readest thou F" Luke x. 26. Aid there cannot be 
an instance produced where an inquiring sinner was answered 
by a reference to the light within. This would have been a di- 



192 

rect means of making him a prey to the delusions of a depraved 
and deceitful heart. 

Here 1 rest. These are hut the advance guard of a host of 
arguments in reserve. These however will be sufficient to de- 
feat any force which you can bring. The more this subject is 
examined, the more clearly it will appear, that the doctrine of 
*' every man having in his own bosom a nearer and more cer- 
tain rule and guide of conscience than the Scriptures" is a 
6i cunningly devised fable," not of wicked men, — for I verily 
believe your Founders were more deluded than deluding,— but of 
him who is the " father of lies," and who, in contending with 
Christ, (Matt, iv.) and his conflicts with saints (Eph. vi.) 
dreads above all things the " sword of the Spirit, which is the 
word of God: 9 PAUL. 



' Seventh-day , ist Mo. $th. 1822. 

LETTER XIX. 

It will be seen by a recurrence to my last essay, that the 
*' Internal Light" which the Society of Friends deems essential 
to salvation — which they have always considered as the true 
and only foundation of genuine Christianity is the Light of 
Christ in the soul — " Christ within the hope of Glory, whom" 
saith the Apostle "we preach" Col. i. 27, 28. It is a "measure 
or manifestation of the Holy Spirit" as the Apostle terms it, and 
which he says " is given to every man to profit withal." 1 Cor. 
xii. 7. My opponent opposes this doctrine — he calls it a de/w- 
sion " a cunningly devised fable." — This however we need not 
regard, as I expect clearly to demonstrate, that we are one in 
sentiment with our Lord, his faithful Apostles, and eminently 
holy men of various religious denominations. 

" The question now to be discussed, says my opponent, is 
w What Rule hath God given to direct us in Religion ; the 
Scriptures or internal light ?" In other words (as he puts the 
Scriptures in opposition to internal light) Hath God given us ex- 
ternalYight or internal light to direct us in religion ? I answer, 
that to those who have the Holy Scriptures, God hath given both 
an external and an internal light to guide them in religion. 
As we believe, that the sacred Writings were " given by in- 
spiration of God" — that holy men of old spake and wrote as 
they were moved by the Holy Spirit," so we bel;eve, that the 
testimony of the inspired writings, can never contradict the 
testimony of that divine internal " light which lighteth every 
man that cometli into the world." John i. 9. Like the strings 
of a well tuned instrument, there ever was, and ever will be, a 
perfect harmony between the truth manifested by this light, and 



193 

the written or verbal communications of all those who act under 
its influence. Hence we believe that the Holy Scriptures are an 
outward rule of faith and practice — that all doctrines or opin- 
ions, that arc repugnant to the clear testimonies of the inspired 
volume, are to be rejected; and hence may be refuted, one of 
Paul's assertions in his last Address to us, " that Amicus ad- 
mits the fact, that the Bible and not so ne independent inward 
light, is the rule and test of truth. " — Yet it will not follow tliat 
the Scriptures without the illumination of the Holy Spirit are 
capable to impart the spiritual knowledge of divine tilings — 
•'No man knoweth the things of God but by the Spirit of God." 
1 Cor. ii. 11. The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritu- 
ally discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. But the natural man may read 
the Scriptures, he may get them by wrote, he may defend them 
with great though blind zeal, and yet be utterly ignorant of 
their true design, their spiritual import. — There is an immense 
difference between a literal faith, and that faith which works by 
love, to the purifying of the soul. Gal. v. 6. Acts xv. 19. The 
first is an airy speculate e thing, that dwells in the head — the 
latter is a deep, operative, sanctifying principle, that dwells in 
the heart. The former was the faith of persecuting SAUL — 
the latter that of the great Apostle. 

William Law, a learned and enlightened Clergyman of the 
Episcopal Church has expressed himself so clearly on the 
subject in discussion, that I cannot forbear quoting him. He 
has stated his views with a force and perspicuity peculiar to 
himself. " The Scriptures" says he " are an infallible History 
or Relation of what the Spirit is and does and works in true be- 
lievers, and also, an infallible direction how we are to seek and 
wait and trust in His good power over us. But then the Scrip- 
tures themselves, though thus true and infallible in these repots 
and instructions about the Holy Spirit, yet they can go no 
farther than to be a true history. They cannot give to the reader 
of them the possession the sensibility, the enjoyment, of that which 
they relate. This is plain, not only from the nature of a writ- 
ten history or instruction, but from the express words of our 
Lord, '* Except a man be born again of the Spirit he cannot 
see or enter into the kingdom of God," therefore the new birth 
from above, or of the Spirit is that alone which gives true know- 
ledge and perception of that, which is " the kingdom of God." 
The history may relate truths enough about it ; but the kingdom 
of God, being nothing else but the power and presence of God 
dwelling and ruling in our souls, this can manifest itself, and can 
manifest itself to nothing in man, but to the new birth. For 
every thing else in man, is deaf and dumb and blind to the king- 



104 

dorn of God. — How much then is it to be lamented, as well as 
impossible to be denied, that though the scriptures assure us, that 
" the things of the Spirit of God, are and must, to the end of the 
world, be foolishness to the natural man," yet from almost one 
end of learned Christendom to the other, nothing is thought of 
as the true, and proper means, of attaining divine knowledge, 
hut that which every natural selfish, proud, envious, false, vain- 
glorious, worldly man, can do. Where is that divinity student 
who thinks, or was ever taught to think, of partaking of the 
Light of the Gospel, any other way, than by doing with the Scrip- 
tures, that which he does with pagan writers, whether poets, or- 
ators or comedians — to wit : — exercise his logic, rhetoric, and 
critical skill, in descanting upon them. This done, he is thought 
by tmnself, and often by others, to have a sufficiency of divine 
Apostolical knowledge !!! — What wonder therefore, if it should 
sometimes happen, that the very same vain, corrupt, puffing 
literature which raises one man to a Poet laureat, should set an- 
other in a divinity Chair." 

After many excellent remarks on this subject, he says, "Now 
to call such Scripture skill, divine knowledge is just as solid and 
judicious, as if a man was said, or thought to know, that which 
St. John knew, because he could say his whole Gospel and Epis- 
tles by heart, without missing a word of them — for a literal 
knowledge of Scripture, is hut like having all Scripture in the 
memory, and is so far from being a divine perception of the things 
spoken of, that the most vicious, wicked scholar in the world, 
may attain to the highest perfection in it." " That one light 
and Spirit, which was only one from all eternity, must to all 
eternity be that only light and Spirit, by which angels or men, 
can ever have any union or communion with God. Every other 
light is but the light whence beasts have their sense or suhtilty 
— every other spirit is but that which gives to flesh and blood 
all its lusts and appetites. — This empty letter learned knowledge, 
which the natural man can as easily have of the sacred Scriptures 
as of any other Books, being taken for divine knowledge, has 
spread such darkness and delusion all over Christendom, as may 
be reckoned no less than a general apostacy from the Gospel state 
of divine illumination. For the gospel state, in its whole nature, 
has but one light, and that is the Lamb of God ; it has but one life, 
and that is by the Spirit of God. Whatever is not of and from 
this Light and governed by this Spirit, call it by what high 
name you will, is no part of the gospel state." 

What has been said and quoted on this subject clearly demon- 
strates our position, that " the Holy Spirit is the primary rule 
of faith and practice." This will be further illustrated if we 
consider, that the Scriptures are but the dictates of the Holy 
Spirit. How then can that which proceeded from a divine 



193 

source be a more certain rule than the source from which it pro- 
ceeded ? Can the stream be better than the fountain ? Can the 
effect be greater or surer than the cause I It is absurd to affirm 
it. The truth is that any doubt on this subject must proceed 
from a secret infidelity — a species of Deism — a disbelief in the 
immediate teaching of the Holy Spirit ; because no man can ra- 
tionally doubt that an immediate communication from W\v foun- 
tain of Divine knowledge, must be superior in every respect to 
any transcript of the Divine will, liable to be misunderstood by 
the most serious inquirer, without the illumination of the same 
Spirit which dictated it. 

Can any one suppose, that the Divine will communicated to a 
fellow-creature 1800 years ago, — the import of that communica- 
tion written in a Book or Letter, that book or letter put into 
the hands of a transcriber — his transcript copied, that copy 
copied again — the last copy translated — the translation printed 
and reprinted — I say can any one suppose that such a communi- 
cation of theDivine will, addressed to the understanding through 
the medium of the senses, can be a surer evidence of Divine truth, 
than a direct communication, clearly and distinctly made to the 
soul, from the Fountain of Light and Life ? — To answer 
affirmatively, must I think, involve the Respondent in the gross- 
est absurdity. 

The only way to avoid this absurdity, is to deny the premises, 
— to declare plainly, what my opponent has insinuated, " that 
God has ceased to communicate immediately with men." — "Ex- 
traordinary inspiration has ceased," says our learned essayist 
— " God has given us his whole counsel," — " the cannon of 
Scripture has closed,"—" such revelations are no longer to be 
believed or obeyed." Thus we see by my opponent's scheme, 
that the Holy Spirit, the Origin of all Divine knowledge, is now 
reduced to the condition of an inferior Agent; his office is to 
take the words that Moses and the prophets, that Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude wrote, and 
" apply them to our hearts." The great Crea*' r of the uni- 
verse is now reduced to the state of a mere interpreter — a kind 
of " Servum servorum." That this is a very valuable thing, 
my opponent condescends to admit — "the Holy Spirit is of great 
use in revealing mysteries," — that is in explaining the words of 
the Scripture writers. 

I do not know what others may think of this kind of doctrine, 
but to me it appears injurious to the exalted character of the 
Deity. Those who can entertain it, with a full view of its con- 
sequences, have I think, advanced far into the darkness of in- 
fidelity ; a state in which unhappily many are deeply involved. 
"Light is come into the world. " but men" continue to "love 



196 

darkness rather than tight 9 * — and " this is and ever will be the 
only cause of our condemnation." John Hi. 19. 

Now I should be glad to know upon what authority it is as- 
serted that " extraordinary Inspiration has ceased," that " God 
has already given us his wAoie counsel," that "the cannon of 
Scripture has closed," that " such revelations are no longer to 
be believed or obeyed." The sacred writers, I am sure convey 
no such ideas. I should therefore like to be informed why 
" Paul" has undertaken thus to limit the Deity— to set bounds 
to Him who declared " All power is given to me in Heaven and 
in earth — and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of 
the world." 

In his last Essay my opponent admits that " the Spirit some- 
times acts as an internal Guide." — But he says, " the question 
is, whether we have the Spirit ?" — or H whether we can know that 
we have it 9 or can follow it but by the Scriptures ? — In a former 
Essay he asks "How can a man know that he has the Spirit?" 
These queries are about as rational as the question put by the 
blind boy to his companions, when he asked them " How do you 
know when the sun shines ?" One answer might very well serve 
both. To wit, " By its own evidence." To send us to the 
Scriptures to know when we have the Spirit, is quite as reasona- 
ble as it would be to send the delighted participant of Solar light, 
to Sir Isaac Newton's Dissertation on Optics, to know when the 
sun shines. The light of the Sun and the light of the Holy Spi- 
rit are only to be known by their own operation. No verbal 
dissertation of either, can give to those who have never enjoyed 
them, any just idea of their nature. 

" Paul" admits that we have " Internal moral light," but de- 
nies that light, sufficient for salvation, is given to all mankind. 
Where did my opponent derive this notion ? Did he learn it from 
the Inspired Penmen ? I believe I may venture to say that the 
Scriptures teach no such doctrine. " Internal moral light" is a 
term whose meaning is I think foreign to any thing taught by 
the Sacred Writers. The Evangelist John in the first chapter 
of his Gospel speaks of a Light, which he tells us is Christ — 
46 the true Light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the 
world" — Now unless Christ be only an " Internal moral Light" 
my opponent must be mistaken on this point. To say that our 
Lord is only a moral light is I think to degrade the divine Head 
of the Church to the low character of a mere preacher of morality, 

" We deny" says our opponent " that light sufficient for sal- 
vation is given to all mankind." This doctrine appears to me 
in the most unequivocal manner to contradict the whole tenor of 
the Old and New Testament, and to derogate from the justice 
and mercy of our divine Creator. It savours strongly of that 
most abhorrent belief in "unconditional election and reprobation" 



19; 

— a belief which I had hoped the enlightened age in which we 
live had nearly if not quite consigned to those dark regions from 
whence it came. " As I live saith the Lord God I have no plea- 
sure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from 
his way and live." Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. Now if our Creator 
hath not given " light sufficient for salvation to all mankind," 
these solemn expressions of God through the prophet must be 
false — because if God has denied " light sufficient for salvation" 
to any individual of the whole human family — then God must have 
pleasure in the death of that individual-— because to withhold 
" light sufficient for the salvation of that individual must certain- 
ly be according to the pleasure of God, who has the power to 
give that light. 

How different from the doctrine of the Apostles is this dark 
Creed of my opponent ! " The Lord," says Peter "is not willing 
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" 
2 Peter Hi. 9. " The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath 
appeared unto all men," saith the Apostle to the Gentiles "teach- 
ing us that denying ungodliness and the world's lusts, we should 
live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. Tit. 
ii. 12. "If any man sin," says the disciple whom Jesus loved 
"we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- 
eous : and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours 
only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ii. 12. Well 
might the admiring Apostle say " of a truth I perceive that God 
is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him 
<md worketh righteousness is accepted of him" Acts x. 34. 35. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday^ Jan. 12, 1822, 

LETTER XVIII. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

" To the law and to the Testimony ; if they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them," Isa. viii. 20. 

You will agree with me that a more important question than 
that at present in discussion cannot be presented to the serious 
mind. Let us then seek the truth with honesty and candour. 
Let us understand each other, and keep to the point in contro- 
versy. "To those who have the Scriptures," says Amicus, 
" God hath given both an external and an internal light to guide 
them in religion." Granted. Now as both these lights cannot 
be the Primary guide, the question is which of these has God ap- 
pointed as the Primary and Superior guide. To which should we 
first resort for divine information ? To which should we first &u> 



198 

i*ect the inquiring minds of others. The Scriptures are our first 
resort, the light within is yours. In my last, six arguments 
were adduced to prove that God refers us to the Scriptures or 
external revelation as a paramount and infallible Rule. And I 
challenged Amicus to quote one passage where God has referred 
common Christians to internal light as an infallihle rule. With- 
out answering one of my objections, he brings the following ar- 
guments, of his own. 

Arg. 1. " William Law, one of your preachers was of our 
opinion." A. 1. Except a general leaning towards mysticism, 
there is nothing in that long quotation repugnant to our doc- 
trines. 2. But had he decided clearly in your favour, the Bible 
no where tells me that William Law is a divinely appointed 
standard. 3. His leaning towards mysticism was his ruin, — 
leading him, in his latter years, to deny the Atonement 9 the Pu- 
nitive Justice of God, and to represent the history of the Fall as 
an Mlegory ! (v. Southey's Life of Wesley, vol. l.p. 314 note.) 
In his early life, while he reverenced the Scriptures more, he 
wrote some rery useful works, but forsaking a plain and di- 
vinely appointed Guide, he lost his way and became bewildered 
in the labyrinth of mysticism ! And hence I infer the danger of 
your doctrine. For if it be seducing enough to lead such men 
astray — of such strength of mind and knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures — what may we not fear when it is instilled into the minds 
of uninstructed, inexperienced youth ! — William Law therefore 
is an argument against you. 

Arg, 2. " The Scriptures are the dictates of the Spirit, and can 
we suppose a mere transcript of his will surer evidence than a 
direct communication from the Spirit himself ?" A. 1. Granted, 
the Scriptures are the " dictates of the Spirit" and a " transcript 
of his will." Hence it follows (unless we suppose the unchang- 
ahle God to change his mind,) that no future or other dictates f 
however made, can be a surer guide or more infallible rule. 
2. Granting also that the Spirit does confirm and enforce the 
Scriptures by a manifestation of himself to the regenerate soul, 
thus giving; to that soul infinitely clearer and more impressive 
views of truth than a mere rational conviction can ever give to an 
unregenerate man ; still it does not follow that internal light in 
general, or the Holy Spirit in particular, is the divinely appoint- 
ed rule of faith. For, first, I deny that the Spirit generally, if 
ever, makes this manifestation to the soul except by and through 
the Scriptures read, heard, or in some way understood. And, 
secondly, could you prove that this manifestation is made to 
some who have not previously had external revelation, it will not 
follow that this manifestation or light is given to all mankind, 
or if given to all mankind, it would not follow that the scriptures 
direct us to internal light as our guide. And this last is the point 



199 

which you must prove, or sacrifice your doctrine. If you can- 
not prove /rom Scripture that God commands us to follow in- 
ternal light as a " nearer and more certain guide of conscience 
than the Scriptures" you must give up your argument. It is in 
vain, therefore, to talk of the " clearness of the spiritual manifes- 
tation," — does God command us to follow it as our primary rule ? 

Arg. 3. " You hold that extraor dinar ij inspiration has ceased, 
and that immediate revelations are no longer to he expected." 
A. I do. And until you will work some Miracle, or give me some 
such extraordinary evidence of your Divine Mission and Inspira- 
tion as the Apostles gave of theirs, you must pardon me if I de- 
cline considering your Sermons, Books and Essays a part of 
Inspired Scripture ! 

Arg. 4. "You make the Holy Spirit the mere interpreter of 
the words which Moses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Jude 
wrote." A. This is not the first insinuation against the plenary 
inspiration of the Scriptures. The Bible, for sooth, is the mere 
word of Peter, James, John and Jude ! No wonder you have so 
often denied their " infallibility," talked of their "slowness to 
perceive," their " maturing in judgment," their " mistakes" 
and M errors !" If these, or any other men are the authors of the 
Bible, it is stpoor rule of faith indeed ! But however you may re- 
gard Scripture we "receive it not as the word of men, but as it 
is in truth, the word of God." 1 Thess. ii. 13. Now whether 
it be unworthy of a God who always works by means to en- 
lighten a soul through his own word, I leave the reader to 
decide. 

Having thus answered his leading arguments, I will now pro- 
duce some further considerations to show that Scripture and not 
internal light is the Rule and Test of truth. 

7. Ml Scripture is inspired and therefore infallible ; but all in- 
ternal light is not i7ispired, and therefore nat infallible. There- 
fore Scripture is the safer guide. "All Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God." 2 Tim. iii. 16. Now is it any where 
said "All internal light is inspired?" If so, I have never seen 
it. Reason and Conscience are but imperfect guides in religion, 
and these guides all men are liable to mistake for the Spirit of 
God. He who follows the Scriptures is sure to follow the Di- 
vine Spirit ; but he who follows internal light may be following 
his own deceitful heart, or the temptations and delusions of the 
Spirit of darkness. 

8. Christ refers to the Scriptures as a rule, John v. 39. 
" Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life, and they are they which testify of me," Now does he ever 
say the same of internal light? Has he ever said, "Attend to the 
light within, and it shall testify of me ?" I should like to see the 
passage. To apply to ourselves, or to men in general, the 



200 

promises made to the Apostles of an extraordinory inspiration, 
is to put ourselves on a par with those distinguished men who 
were to lay the foundation upon which all future ages were to 
build. Eph. ii. 20. "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures," 
said our Lord to those who denied the Resurrection. Matt. xxii. 
29. Likewise the question about the sabbath, (Matt. xii. 3.) lie 
decided by an appeal to Scripture and not to internal light. 

9. The Apostle takes it for granted, that external, must pre- 
cede Internal light. Rom. x. 14, 17. "How shall they call on 
him in whom they have not believed ? And how shall they be- 
lieve in him of whom they have not heard ? And how shall they 
hear without a preacher ? So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God." This text while it proves the 
propriety and necessity of Bible and Missionary Societies, and 
the utility of more Preaching than you generally have in your 
assemblies ; — and while it proves that the Holy Spirit is not 
given as a teacher to all mankind, proves that without external 
there can be no internal light. In other words, that there is no 
true internal light but what comes to us through the Scriptures. 
"Faith cometh by hearing." Whatever light therefore you 
may have, if ix be not derived from, or received through the 
Scriptures, it is not true light, but darkness. 

10. As a farther proof that we have no right to expect tiie 
Spirit, except through the Scriptures, we have all the conver- 
sions of the New Testament. Had it not been for the Preaching 
of Christ, the Apostles would have remained unconverted, igno- 
rant fishermen. Had it not been for the preaching of Peter and 
others at Pentecost, the Spirit would never have "pricked the 
hearts" of the Jews. But for the preaching of Philip, the 
Samaritans would not have been converted. Acts. viii. 5. The 
prophecy of Isaiah and the preaching of Philip, gave internal 
light to the Eunuch, viii. 35. But for his residence among the 
Jews, the Roman Centurion would have never known a Saviour. 
While Paul preached, "Lydia's heart was opened." Acts xvi. 
14. The Bereans " searched the Scriptures daily and therefore 
many of them believed." xvii. 12. The Corinthians would 
never have received " a manifestation of the Spirit (or extraor- 
dinary gifts) to profit withal," had they not had the outward 
gospel. And so of the Romans, Philippians and Galatians, — « 
of the last of whom he says " Received ye the Spirit by the works 
of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" Gal. iii. 3. How in- 
consistent then for you to recommend inquirers after salvation 
to follow their internal light, when there is in man naturally no 
such light 1 — When we have no right to expect internal saving 
light, except by and through the Scnptures? We value the influ- 
ences of the Spirit as highly as yourselves, but we seek those 
influences through the Scriptures as the cjivincly appointed 



201 

means. You seek them without consulting the Scriptures, and 
expect a blessing without using the appointed means ! 

11. The Scriptures are a rule for Preachers. 1 Peter iv. n. 
" If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." A rule 
for hearers, 2 John 10 : " If there come any unto you and bring 
not this doctrine (of Christ) receive him not into your house, 
neither bid him God speed." Also, Gal. i. 9. " If any man 
preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, 
let him be accursed. " How shall \vc know whether a preacher 
brings the " doctrine" of John, or the "gospel" of Paul, but by 
a reference to their writings as a standard/ The Bible, therefore, 
and not internal light is the Rule of truth for both Preachers 
and Hearers. 

12. The high terms in which the Bible is spoken of, proves it 
a sufficient and perfect rule. Ps. 119, 105, 130. *« Thy word is 
a Lamp -unto my feet, and a Light unto my paths." « The en- 
trance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the 
simple." Ps. xix. 7. " The Law of the Lord is perfect, convert- 
ing the soul." 2 Tim. iii. 16. " The Holy Scriptures are able 
to make us wise unto salvation." Now if the Scriptures are a 
"Light," — a "perfect Law," — able to "convert" the soul — 
"make us wise unto salvation," and render us " perfect, tho- 
roughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Tim. iii. 17.) what 
can we want more ? 

13. Lastly; our doctrine honours, your doctrine dishonours 
both the Scriptures and the Spirit. There never yet arose a sect 
professing your leading doctrine, but always undervalued or 
perverted the Scriptures. The Anabaptists of Germany were 
the first (since the Reformation) who adopted the principle that 
the spirit speaking within is the primary rule. Accordingly 
they overruled or abused Scripture whenever it opposed their in- 
clinations. Mimzer. one of their leaders, married eleven wives, 
killed a number of his companions, and under pretence of setting 
up a spiritual kingdom, issued orders to " kill all the Priests 
and Magistrates in the world." Bockholdt declared himself 
" king of Sion." David George believed himself the "true Son 
of God." Did this honour either Scripture or the Spirit ? In 
the next century, internal light led Swedenborg, by his " celes- 
tial" sense of Scripture, to refine away the literal and proper 
sense, — to deny the Atonement, the Resurrection of the material 
body, and to believe that he held daily conversation with the 
Apostles, Angels and with the Lord himself! I will not pain 
you by a recital of the extravagancies of Naijlor and others of 
George Fox's early followers. You cannot deny but in follow- 
ing their supposed internal guide they were guilty of the mos£ 
impious and blasphemous conduct. 

26 



£02 

The Shakers are a branch of your Society. They still retain 
your dress, plain language, opposition to oaths, " internal light," 
and only or chiefly condemn you for having something like a 
Creed. In their book published a few years ago called " Testi- 
mony to Christ's Second Appearing," they state, lest the reader 
should consider it their creed, that ** these are the present senti- 
ments of our leading members," reserving room for any future 
a gift" or contradictory communication. They have entirely 
new modelled the Scriptures, altering any part of it according to 
later revelations. I have only to add that your Society are led 
by the same erroneous preference of internal light and imme- 
diate revelations, to undervalue proportion ably the Scriptures of 
truth. You take from them every honourable epithet, such as 
" the Gospel," " Revelation," " Word of God," " Law and 
Testimony," and apply these to internal light. You say little 
of the " outward" and much of the "inward coming" of our 
Lord Jesus Christ: — little of his Atonement, and much of his 
internal righteousness ; — you exclude the sacred volume from your 
places of worship — quote it as you would any other authentic 
history — oppose its circulation by Bible and Missionary Socie- 
ties, and treat the Scriptures as a sort of half-inspired allegory. 
In short you reject it as a guide, you refine all its doctrines in 
the crucible of mysticism, and reduce the beautiful system of 
Christ and his Apostles to something little differing from the 
creed of Socrates or Cicero. 

If your doctrine be not a dangerous error, there never was an 
error held ; if our doctrine be not worth contending for, Chris- 
tianity is of little consequence. PAUL. 



Seventh-day, ist. Mo. 19, i8«. 

LETTER XX. - 

* Amicus can fully subscribe to the sentiment "that a more im- 
portant subject than the one now under discussion cannot be pre- 
sented to the serious mind." Whether God has created myriads 
of human beings destined to an endless existence, placed them in 
a state of probation where their final happiness or misery is to 
be determined, and has denied them the means of salvation ? Or, 
whether he has furnished every rational creature with the means 
of securing his favour and enjoying it eternally ? — Whether the 
Deity we worship is a God of Justice, Love and Mercy — or 
whether he is cruel and capricous in the last degree ? are ques- 
tions that arc deeply involved in the present controversy. 

In my last Essay I quoted some passages from the writings 
of the truly enlightened William Law. I quoted them, not 



203 

because he was a preacher of my opponent's opinion or persua- 
sion — not because he was " a divinely appointed standard'? — J 
am too well acquainted with his writings to suppose, either that 
he was an infallible standard of religious truth or that in temper 
or principle he in the least resembled my opponent. I quoted 
him because the sentiments he advanced were so consonant to 
the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and to sound reason that I 
was persuaded they would carry conviction to the heart and un- 
derstanding of every unprejudiced reader. 

"Except" says my opponent "a general leaning towards 
mysticism there is nothing in that long quotation repugnant to 
our doctrine." — " Paul" could hardly have expressed his aver- 
sion to William Law's doctrine in more forcible language than 
by ascribing to its supporter " a general leaning towards mys- 
ticism." — Mysticism is a term so repugnant to the feelings of 
my opponent that it seems by several of his Essays sufficient to 
call forth all his efforts to oppose it — the inference is unavoida- 
ble, Law's sentiments are wholly to be reprobated. 

" His leaning towards mysticism was his ruin." This is the 
first time I ever heard that William Law was ruined ! Now in 
what did this ruin consist ? Did he lose his peace of mind, his 
communion with God the fountain of all consolation ? No. — Did 
he lose " the pearl of great price" for whose sake he accounted 
the wealth, the glory and honour of this world as dross ? No. 
Did he lose the consoling assurance of future blessedness on 
his death bed? No. What then did he lose? Why he lost or 
rather refused what some people think worth more than all 
these ! A rich Benefice ! This was the only ruin that ever at- 
tended him. A ruin as welcome to this heavenly minded man 
as the largest salary is to the most selfish priest in Christendom. 

Thomas Hartley, a clergyman of the Episcopal church has 
borne an ample testimony to the superior excellence of William 
Law as an enlightened minister of the Gospel. His sentiments 
sufficiently refute the charge that he "represents the history of 
the fall as an allegory." The loss of the divine life through the 
fall is one of Law's most prominent doctrines. He too well 
knew its truth to represent it as a fiction or an allegory. On 
the reality of the fall of man all his arguments, to prove the 
necessity of the new birth are founded. " His explanation" says 
Hartley "of the gracious method of our redemption by Jesus 
Christ in the way of our union with him, and receiving a divine 
nature from him presents itself as the sole possible remedy of 
man's misery — the only conceivable ground of his salvation. It 
sets forth God's love to all without partiality in providing a Sa- 
viour for all under every dispensation ; and represents Christ as 
that Saviour in the most intimate relation to us that can be — even 
as that quickening Spirit which is the soul's true and only happy 



204 

life." If my readers desire any farther refutation of " Paul's" 
charges against William Law, let them consult the account of his 
life prefixed to the Boston Edition of his " Serious call to a de- 
vout and holy life, 1808. This will I apprehend he a much bet- 
ter standard to decide the question of William Law's religious 
character than " Southey's life of Wesley." If " Southey" is 
not a very poor judge of religious characters and of Gospel 
truths, I have much undervalued his merits. 

Having briefly endeavoured to rescue the memory of the ex- 
cellent William Law from the aspersions of my opponent, I will 
now proceed to the discussion of the great Question. What has 
God appointed as the primary Guide, to direct us in our religi- 
ous concerns ? We believe, on the ground of the clearest Scrip- 
ture evidence, that the Holy Spirit is the principal and primary 
Rule of Faith, and that it is the Christian's Guide, expressly ap- 
pointed to lead him into all truths relating to his salvation. 

The first passage 1 shall quote to prove our position is the 
promise of Christ himself, John xiv. 26 : " The Comforter 
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, 
He shall teach you all things* I have many things to say unto 
you but ye cannot bear them now ; howbeit when He, the Spirit 
ol Truth is come He will guide you into all truth." John xvi. 1 3. 
With this doctrine of our Lord the testimony of the Evangelist 
perfectly accords. " The anointing which ye have received of 
him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you but 
as the same anointing teacheih you all things and is truth and is no 
lie, 1 Job ii. -7. I cannot conceive how any two passages of 
Scripture could possibly run more parallel than these. In the 
former Christ promises the Holy Spirit which was to teach his 
followers all things — in the latter the Evangelist declares the 
fulfilment of this promise, " the anointing teacheih you all things 
and is truth and is no lie." These texts point out, 1st. The na- 
ture of this Guide — "the Holy Spirit." 2ndly His office as a 
teacher, " He shall teach you." 3dly, What He teacheth, " All 
things," every thing necessary to salvation, 4thly, Where he 
teacheth, "The anointing which ye have received abideth in yon." 
5thly, His sufficiency as a teacher " Ye need not that any man 
teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things." 
And 6thly, The certainty of this teacher, that it is no "delusion" 
— " It is truth and is no lie." 

From all which it is evident, that the " Internal Light" of 
the Holy Spirit — the Word nigh in the heart and in the mouth, 
which the Apostles preached, Rom. x. 8. This " true Light that 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world, John i. 9. That 
Light of which our Lord said, "He that folio weth it shall not 
walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life, John viii. 12. 
From all this I say it is evident that this Divine Light is no 



2U5 

*•' ignis fatuus" — no "cunningly devised fable," but the blessed 
and all sufficient means of Salvation, the anointed teacher of the 
New Covenant dispensation — without which, though we may be 
in possession of all other means, we are dark and blind and ig- 
norant in divine things — with which, though destitute of every 
other Teacher we may attain to the true and saving knowledge 
of God. 

Now I think it will not be difficult to demonstrate that the Ho- 
ly Spirit is and must he the principal rule, because it is the Foun- 
tain of all truth. The inspired writings are but streams from 
tins fountain. Now which is the principal — the Fountain or the 
stream? No rational man can hesitate a moment to answer this 
question. It will be equally easy to prove that the Holy Spirit 
is the primary rule. First, In point of time. Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob were utterly destitute of the Scriptures — No part oi 
them were written until some centuries after their decease, 
yet they had an infallible rule of faith and practice. " But," 
says my opponent "the question is, Whether we can know that 
we have the Spirit, but by the Scriptures ?" This question which 
only serves to shew the dark state of the querist, may be suffici- 
ently answered by another question — How did these patriarchs 
know that they had the spirit ? They had no Scriptures to resort 
to for this purpose. Were they led by an " ignis fatuus" — Did 
they follow "a cunningly devised fable ?" Any reply to these 
queries must involve my opponent in a dilemma — If he should 
answer affirmatively, he will contradict the plainest Scripture 
evidence — if negatively, he must admit that the Holy Spirit is 
the primary rule of faith and practice. 

Second. In point of importance it is also the primary Rule. 
Because by means of the Holy Spirit salvation is attainable 
without the aid of the Holy Scriptures ; else were Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob consigned to perdition, else three fourths of the whole 
human family have gone to destruction by the providence or 
rather the improvidence of God, which it would be injurious to 
the character of our merciful creator to believe — Again, the 
Holy Spirit is the primary rule, because salvation cannot be at- 
tained without its agency, " Except a man be born again of the 
Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God." The conclusion to 
be drawn from the premises is unanswerable — The Holy Spirit 
is the primary rule, both in point of time and in point of impor- 
tance, and this establishes our position. " That the Holy Spirit 
is the principal and primary Rule of Faith and practice." 

As was observed in my last essay, any doubt on this subject 
must arise from the source of all Infidelity. It is a genuine 
branch of Deism. Deism is most strongly characterized by its 
rejection of Divine Revelation. My opponent denies divine reve- 
lation to three fourths of mankind, and affirms that the other 



206 

fourth can only have it through the medium of the Scriptures. 
Thus he not only contradicts the plainest Scripture testimonies — 
not only limits the love and mercy of God : but, by uniting with 
the Deist in three fourths of his scheme, gives him the greatest 
encouragement to contend for the remaining fraction of it, and 
to cut off the whole human family from any union or communion 
with God, or any knowledge of his Will. 

" Immediate Revelations are no longer to be expected," says 
our opponent — " No man knoweth the things of God but by 
the Spirit of God, 5 ' saith the Apostle — " the things that God 
hath prepared for them that love him, he hath revealed to us by 
his Spint," 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10. Now if immediate revelations have 
ceased, and the Apostle's doctrine remains to be true, no man 
in the present day can know the things of God at all — nor have 
any enjoyment of the things which God hath prepared for them 
that love him ! 

My opponent affirms that " God always works by means/* 
Now either this assertion is false, or the Scriptures are not true. 
" God," saith the Apostle to the Gentiles " who commanded 
the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to 
give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face 
of Jesus Christ ; but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, 
that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." 
2 Cor. iv. 6, 7. In this passage two points are demonstrated. 
First. That the Light which gives the knowledge of God, is 
immediately communicated, " God hath shined,' 9 Secondly. That 
this Light is an " Internal Light" — " God hath shined in our 
hearts" — " we have this treasure in earthen vessels" — Now it is 
undeniably evident, that the Apostle is here speaking of the 
same divine light, which the Evangelist said was " the true light 
that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," John i. 19. 

" Paul" says, "the Scriptures are a transcript of the Divine 
will, and that it follows, that no further or other dictates how- 
ever made, can be a surer guide or more infallible rule." When 
the real state of the case is fairly made out, this conclusion will 
be found erroneous, because, an immediate communication of the 
Divine will to the soul, needs no interpreter to make it clearly 
understood, it is self evident — But the Scriptures being an out- 
ward communication addressed to the understanding through the 
medium of the senses, we are extremely liable to misunderstand 
them. " Paul" interprets a text one way — Amicus understands 
it in a different sense — Now who shall decide the case ? Shall 
we go to the Commentators? ' We shall find them discordant — 
none more contradictory than they. Calvin tells me one thing, 
Luther another, Melancthon another ; after wading through the 
writings of the ancient Fathers, consulting the Reformers and 
applying to the modern Doctors we shall find ourselves just 



where we set out, or perhaps worse bewildered by the jarring 
and conflicting opinions of our fallible counsellors. From these 
considerations the correctness of my position as expressed in 
my last Essay, must I think be evident, that " an immediate 
communication from the fountain of Divine knowledge must be 
superior in every respect to any transcript of .the Divine Will, 
liable to be misunderstood by the most serious inquirer without 
the illumination of the same spirit which dictated it." 

My opponent affirms that " the Scriptures never direct us to 
internal Light." Now the truth is they seldom if ever direct 
us to any other Light. I do not recollect a single passage in 
the whole New Testament that directs Christians to resort to the 
Scriptures for light, — I am certain my opponent has not quoted 
one. In the text John v. 39. Paul says " Christ refers to the 
Scriptures as a rule." This however is, not true as I think can 
he clearly proved. In the first place the present translation 
does not render the original correctly. By the rules of the Greek 
Grammar the word Ereuxate may be understood either in- 
dicatively or imperatively ; — the second person plural of the 
Indicative and Imperative Moods being exactly the same in the 
Greek language. The context I think clearly proves that it 
ought to have been rendered indicatively, "Ye search the Scrip- 
tures." From the 37 to the 47 verses inclusive our Lord's lan- 
guage is one continued strain of severe reproof to the Jews, 
who were then seeking to kill him. In the text in question he 
tells them 1st. "Ye search the Scriptures," he then tells them the 
reason why they searched them " for in them ye think ye have 
eternal life," thereby intimating their gross mistake. — He then 
goes on to shew them that though the Scripture prophecies tes- 
tified of him by predicting his coming, yet that when he had 
come — these blind Jews rejected and would not come unto him 
the fountain of Light and Life that they might have life. " And 
they are they that testify of me, and ye will not come unto me 
that ye might have life." Several of the best modern transla- 
tions of the Bible sanction this view of the subject, particular- 
ly that of the learned Dr. Adam Clarke, lately published in New 
York. — For want of room I must postpone a reply to his other 
arguments on this subject to a future number. 

Towards the close of his last essay M Paul" brings a curious 
argument against the doctrine of " Internal Light." He thinks 
the conduct of the Anabaptists of Minister — the errors of David 
George — Bockholdt, Munzer — Swedenborg and Naylor a strong 
objection to the doctrine. This objection whatever force it 
may have is equally forcible against his own scheme I for 
if we are to reject the Holy Spirit as a rule of action, because 
some professing to be guided by this Heavenly Teacher have 
misconducted themselves. — On the same principle we must reject 



£08 

the Holy Scriptures, seeing that many who have professed to 
be guided by them, have been guilty of the grossest errors 
both in faith and practise. The Catholics cite them to prove 
that the material Body and Blood of Christ are really and 
substantially present in the Eucharist. " This is my Body, 
this is my Blood. " Persecutors whether Papists or Protestants 
have attempted to prove by Scripture that killing of heretics is 
authorized by the Gospel. "I would they were even cutoff 
that trouble you." Gal. v. 12. When the people of New Engr 
land persecuted the Baptists and the Quakers they professed to 
act upon Scripture authority. I will not pain my opponent by 
a recital of the cruelties of these people toward the innocent dis- 
senters from their creed — neither will I be so illi beral as to say 
these cruelties were the legitimate fruit of their Religion. No 
system is justly chargeable with the mal-conduct of its profes- 
sors, unless it can be proved that such mal-conduct is the neces- 
sary consequences of that system. What has the conduct of the 
Anabaptists of Minister to do with our principles ? Certainly 
nothing more than with those of my opponent with whom they 
agree in more points than they do with us ! Stubner one 
of their founders relied upon the Scriptures as the foundation of 
their doctrine. The practice of Mtjnzer bears a much strong- 
er affinity to that of our opposers, than to ours. He stood at 
the head of an army — We disclaim all wars — He contended for 
Cardinal Ordinances under the new Covenant — We reject them 
all as being abolished by the unshadowy Dispensation of Christ. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, June 26, 1822. 

LETTER XIX. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

" Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they 
are of God." 1 John iv. 1. 

As some persons, not aware of the tendency of your doctrine 
of " Internal Light," doubt the importance of the present ques- 
tion, before proceeding farther in my arguments, I will briefly 
mention a few of the errors in doctrine and practice which it 
originates. 

1. It leads you to deny the plenary Inspiration of the Apostles, 
and to teach that Christians now are as much inspired as Peter 
or John. 2. It leads you to neglect the Scriphires as not necessary 
to a knowledge of the "Divine will. 3. To question the authen- 
ticity and correctness of our copy of the Bible. Hence you talk 
of its having been made canonical bv Svnods and Councils : of 



209 

its having been "written — transcribed — copied — re-copied — 
translated — printed — re-printe \ &c." intimating that the stream 
lias become muddy since it left the fountain ! 4. Therefore you 
take great liberties with the Bible, rejecting some of it as not in- 
spired, denying to it its proper names of the " Gospel," " Revel- 
ation," "word of God," calling its " lively oracles" a 4< dead 
letter," the " mere words of John and Jude :" You misuse its 
terms, such as Baptism, Lord's Supper, Justification, Righteous- 
ness of Christ, word of faith, preaching, singing, praying: You 
reject its leading doctrines of Total Depravity, Vicarious Righte- 
ousness, Trinity, Resurrection, Everlasting Punishment, — all 
through your over-weaning confidence in internal light. 

5. It leads you to oppose the use of Divinely appointed means. 
It leads you to prefer a silent waiting to vocal Prayer. Whereas 
God has appointed the external ordinance as a means of excit- 
ing in our hearts an internal spirit of supplication. Our 
prayers if social may be often times blessed to others as well as 
ourselves. It is the Divine plan to move our spiritual, through 
our intellectual and bodily senses ; and were you oftener engaged 
in outward prayer in the Sanctuary, in your families and in So- 
cieties, you would probably do more good to others, and receive 
no less blessing for yourselves than on your present plan. 
Preaching is another Divinely appointed means which your doc- 
trine leads you to neglect. Tin? Papists hold that the efficacy 
of the sacrament depends on the " intention" or piety of the ad- 
ministrator. You hold an equal absurdity in supposing that 
the efficacy of preaching depends on the lively exercises of the 
preacher. Whereas it is not the minister that is blessed to the 
edification of others, but the word of God, or the doctrine preach- 
ed. The Apostle rejoiced that " Christ was preached," though 
from wicked motives, (Phil. i. 18.) because he knew that the 
" preaching of Christ" (not the preacher) was the means of sal- 
vation. The Apostle Paul never (that I read of) held a silent 
meeting, or refused to preach when called on, or when people 
were assembled to hear. But you, preferring an imaginary 
light to Apostolic precept and example, preach only when you 
feel like it. Singing is another means of grace which the Scrip- 
tures appoint, and internal light rejects. Col. iii. 16. — "teach- 
ing and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spir- 
itual songs, making melody in your hearts unto the Lord." 
Here the Apostle advises to sing not only " in their hearts/* 
but aloud that they might profit others. 

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are also means appointed to 
exhibit truth, and thereby enlighten the mind and move the 
heart. 

The Sabbath also was ordained as an external means of call- 
27 



210 

ing off our minds from the world to meditation, prayer and wor- 
ship. But the abundance of your internal light sets them aside. 
Christian Conversation is another means of benefitting our fel- 
low creatures which you neglect. " Exhort one another daily," 
is the Divine Command; "wait till the Spirit moves" is yours. 

6. To this doctrine may be traced your opposition to Bible 
and Missionary Societies, You are not anxious to circulate the 
Bible, because you do not think it necessary , as the heathen have 
already a sufficient guide in internal light. Accordingly Dillwyn 
in his Reflections page 173, says " If there be not in all men a 
capacity (internal light) for receiving the glad tidings of the 
gospel, missions would be altogether absurd; and if such a ca- 
pacity is confessed, it is equally absurd to suppose it may not 
be as effectually reached by the immediate influence of Divine 
grace, as by the medium of any instrumental labour." Thus 
you leave Six Hundred ^Millions of your fellow creatures in igno- 
rance of the only Name under Heaven where! y they can be 
saved ! For "how shall they believe or hear without a preach- 
er ?" Rom. x. 14. Out of a thousand other evils resulting from 
your doctrine, I will mention but one more. — 7. It leads you to 
depreciate the Evil of Sin and the value of the Atonement of 
Christ. Penitence for sin and gratitude for the death of Christ 
appear to me essential evidences of piety. But I find neither of 
these in your writings, Sermons or prayers. In " Fothergill's 
Sermons," (a volume very popular among you,) I have looked 
in vain for the spirit of a Penitent, or the faith of a Believer. 
In Fothergill's dying exercises, there is not one word of Christ or 
of confession for sin! The volume contains five long prayers, in 
the last four of which there is but one sentence of confession ! ! 
They are made up of Praise, Thanksgiving {not for Christ how- 
ever) for temporal blessings and for internal light and petitions 
for support in adversity, — just such prayers as an honest Deist 
would offer to his Creator and Preserver. The title under 
which you generally address the Deity is net Reiveen er, but 
" Creator," and the blessings for which you thank him are not 
the Atonement and Obedience of Christ, nor the Scriptures, but 
the internal light he has sent into your hearts ! Now when we 
can discover, in your most pious men, nothing more of gospel 
doctrine and of gospel Spirit than this; and when it is evident 
all this evil arises from the substitution of internal for external 
light as a Rule of Faith, who can doubt the importance of the 
present question ? 

Other Arguments — to prove that Internal Light is not a suffi- 
cient. Universal and Divine!} appointed Rule* 

14. hi rause there are places on the earth where there is no 
spiritual light. Pro^ . xxix. 18. '* Where there is no vision 
the people perish." " Vision" in this place must mean either 



211 

the Scriptures or internal light. If it means internal light, thcji 
internal light is not universal; for there are places where 
" there is no vision." If it means the Scriptures, (as it probably 
does,) then it shows their importance and absolute necessity ; for 
without them the people "perish." This text then proves two 
things, that light is not universal, and that the Scriptures are 
the light of salvation, without which people perish. 

15. Where there is no external revelation the people are in 
darkness. Ps. 74, 20. "The dark places of the earth arc full of 
the habitations of cruelty." Qucrc. Why arc some places 
called "dark?" If you say "because they have no internal 
light," you surrender your doctrine of the universality of this 
light. If you say " hecause they have not the Bible or external 
light," you acknowledge that without the Bible the world is in 
darkness, in other words, that the Bible is our Light and Ride. 

16. It is represented as the peculiar and high Privilege of 
Israel to have the revealed will of God. Deut. iv. 7, 8. " What 
nation is there so great that hath God so nigh unto them ? And 
what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments 
so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day ?" 
Ps. Ixxxix. 15 : " Blessed are the people that know the joyful 
sound." Ps. cxlix. 19, 20 : " He shevveth his word unto Jacob, 
his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so 
with any nation." Rom. iii. 1,2: " What advantage then 
hath the Jew ? Much every way ; chiefly because unto them were 
committed the oracles of God." These texts speak unequivocally 
the inestimable value of the Bible. 

17. That there is not a sufficient light in every man is evident 
from the fact that some really think they are right when they are 
fatally wrong. Prov. xvi. 25 : "There is a way which seemeth 
right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." 
Now if as you say, the gift of the Spirit is universal, and its 
light as clear as when the " sun shines," how happens it that 
any man mistakes his way ? Can a man at noon day think he is 
travelling the turnpike, when he is climbing a fence or crossing 
the fields ? — or think he is going up hill when he is going down I 
Yet Solomon tells us there are men who really think they are 
travelling the road to Heaven, when they are on the highway to 
hell ! How shall we reconcile you and Solomon ? was he mis- 
taken ? If not, you are ; — and there is no such thing as a sufficient, 
universal internal Guide. It is an ignis (not " \g\ms") fatuus,— - 
the delusion of a dream. 

18. It is said in praise of Apollos that he was " mighty in the 
Scriptures," and that "he mightily convinced the Jews, showing 
by the Scriptures (not by internal light) that Jesus was the 
Christ." Acts xviii. 24, 28 : To say this of one of your preach- 



212 

ers would be considered a burlesque. Apollos or you therefore 
mrs be wrong. 

19. Our Lord referred the brethren of Dives, not to internal 
light, but to Moses and the Prophets. Luke xvi. 29, 31. 
" They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. If 
they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither would they be 
persuaded though one arose from the dead." Here he speaks of 
Scripture as their appointed Guide, and exalts its testimony above 
a direct communication from the other world, 

20. Peter speaks of Scripture as a Guide more sure than a voice 
from heaven. 2. Pet. i. 19. " We have also a more sure word of 
prophecy unto which ye do well to take heed until the day dawn 
and the day star arise in your hearts. " The " word of prophe- 
cy" in this verse is the same with "prophecy of Scripture" in the 
next verse and the " prophecy which holy men of God spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost," in the i,lst verse. It 
does not mean internal light, therefore, (as you pretend) but the 
external word, to which if we give earnest heed we may, in due 
time, hope for internal light, or the "rising of the day star in our 
hearts." According to your interpretation we must give heed 
to internal light, until internal light dawn in our hearts; i. e. 
we must follow a light before we have it ! ! But if the " word of 
prophecy" here means the Scripture, it follows, — the Scripture 
is our appointed Guide, — a sure Guide — which we are to follow 
that we may obtain the Spirit. 

21. The Holy Spirit submits His own influences to the test of 
Scripture : of course he would have all other light submit to the 
same test. 1 John iv. 1. "Beloved, believe not every Spirit, 
but try the Spirits whether they are of God. Hereby know ye 
the Spirit of God, &c." And then, in the 3d and 6th verses, gives 
two written rules of judgment. Now if the Spirit of the Lord 
is willing to be tried by Scripture, who is your Spirit that he 
should refuse ? Is he more honorable than the Almighty ? or does 
such a scrutiny make him afraid? PAUL. 



Seventh-day, ind Mo. znd % 1822. 

LETTER XXI. 

A promixent charge, brought against us by my opponent, is, 
that we " dishonour the Scriptures." A charge, which if sup- 
ported by facts, would certainly justify a severe rebuke— but 
which, if it remain unproved, must involve the accuser in the 
guilt of calumny. Let us now examine the evidence adduced to 
prove the truth of his position. 

First. He says, "I am willing to believe the majority of your 



213 

Society agree, that the Scriptures were written under the guid- 
ance of the word or spirit of god, and are therefore to be held 
in high esteem." Now I would ask, how can it *« dishonour the 
Scriptures" to agree, that they were written under the guidance 
of the Iloltj Spirit ? — I cannot conceive how we could honour any 
Writing with a higher honour ! — A more exalted character could 
not possibly be given to any communication either from men or 
angels ! It Is precisely the character which our blessed Lord 
gave to the doctrine which he preached. " My doctrine is not 
mine, but his that sent me." John vii. 16. It is precisely the 
character winch the Holy Scriptures give of themselves. "No 
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for 
the prophecy came not in old time (or as the margin has it — at 
any time) by the Will of man, but holy men of God spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. i. 21. To affirm that 
the Scriptures were penned under Divine influence — under the 
guidance of the word or spirit of god is to grant them the 
most transcendent excellence! It is the" xe pxus ultra" of 
any production, whether the agent he a mortal or an angel from 
Heaven ! — The truth is, that there is no society of people w he 
can possibly hold them in higher estimation than we do — unless 
they pay them that honour, " which belongeth to God only." 
Neither is there any Society who has more reason to esteem 
them — none, as I conceive, whf» is more indebted to them, for 
the support of their peculiar doctrines, than the Society of 
Friends. Whilst on many important points, others wholly dis- 
regard their direct import, and by means of the weakest so- 
phisms evade the force of the plainest Scripture truths. — We con- 
sider ourselves bound, in all cases, to act consistently with the 
clear testimonies of Christ and his Apostles. 

Secondly. My opponent says, "You take from them every 
honourable epithet." Of the truth, or rather the falsity of this 
charge, our readers may judge from the former communications 
of " Amicus," as well as from the uniform testimony of the ap- 
proved authors of our Religious Society. With special reference 
to the Inspiration of the holy men who wrote them, we call them 
" the Holy Scriptures." With reference to the divine truths de- 
clared by them, We call them "the Scriptures of truth." See 
Dan. x. 21. 2 Tim. iii. 15. This is the highest character that 
any of the inspired penmen give them, so that all the censure 
passed upon us, for not calling them by the various appellations 
which my opponent is pleased to give them, is a direct censure 
of the Prophets and Apostles, as well as our Lord himself, who 
never gave them any other title than simply " the Scriptures." 

" Some persons" says my opponent " are not aware of the 
tendency of your doctrine of Internal Light." This is very trre, 
as all of the communications of " Paul" addressed to us suffici 



214 

ently prove — he is not aware that this Internal Light leads every 
experimental witness of its divine efficacy, into great humility — 
into an entire trust and dependance upon God for every religious 
qualification. It appears from his last communication, that they 
who reject the teaching, the leading, and guidance of the Holy 
Spirit, can preach, and pray, and sing psalms, and sprinkle their 
converts, and talk on religious subjects, just when they please — 
in a word, that they can act without divine influence — can retail 
their notions and opinions just when and where their own carnal 
Reason may dictate. In this they clearly manifest the wide dif- 
ference between them and the divinely commissioned Apostles of 
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. " If any man speak" said 
the Apostle " let him speak as the oracles of God." In this sen- 
tence the Apostle alludes to the oracle of the sanctuary — the 
most holy place wherein the ark of the Covenant was deposited, 
where from between the Cherubims, God himself gave answers 
to his people when they consulted about momentous and import- 
ant matters. — See l Kings v. 16. " If any speak let him speak 
as this oracle; 99 that is, let him speak as the Instrument through 
which God communicates divine counsel to his people — let him 
be so influenced by the Holy Spirit, that he may give to others, not 
his own carnal notions, not the opinions which he may have re- 
ceived in Colleges or Theological seminaries, put the pure coun- 
sel of God — " if any man minister let him do it as of the ability 
which God giveth," not which man giveth, not which his educa- 
tion giveth, but which the Holy Spirit giveth. This and this 
only is a pure Gospel ministry, let the dark letter-learned medler 
in scripture phrases, say what he may to the contrary. 

That this was the ministry of the primitive church is manifest, 
from many parts of the Apostolic Writings. "Now we have 
received not the Spirit of the world," not that Spirit which 
makes a mock of divine things, which treats the most solemn truths 
m a light trifling manner "but the Spirit which is of God, that we 
might know the things that are freely given to us of God." Here 
the Apostle clearly points to the only infallible means of attain- 
ing the true and saving knowledge of the things of God, 
" Which things also we speak, not in the words which man 9 s wis- 
dom teacheth," not in the words and phrases of a heathenish di- 
vinity, with which my opponent's communications abound, " but 
which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with 
spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him," and, there- 
fore he speaks contemptuously of them — « speaks evil of those 
things which he knows not" — " neither can he know them, be- 
cause they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 12. Jude 10. 
66 My speech and my preaching 99 says the divinely illuminated 
Apostle, " was not with enticing words of man 9 s wisdom but in 



215 

demonstration of the Spirit and of power," 1 Cor. ii. 4. Now, I 
lay it down as an incontrovertible truth, that just so far as any 
ministry resembles the ministry here described, so far it is a Gos- 
pel Ministry, and no further, let those who contend for " Inter- 
nal darkness," assert what they may to the contrary. 

It is observable in my opponent's last Letter, that he passes 
over all the arguments in my former Essays to prove the reality 
and universality of Divine " Internal Light" — to prove its suf- 
ficiency for salvation to all mankind — My arguments were all 
drawn from clear Scripture testimony — from evidence which I 
consider irrefutable — from a source which my opponent calls 
the " supreme and only standard of religious truth." As he 
has not attempted to refute them by his own standard, I shall 
consider them as a monument of the truth of our principles, as 
well as an evidence that the tenets of my opponent are unscrip- 
tural. Instead of answering my arguments, instead of" keep- 
ing to the points in controversy," my opponent takes a course 
that better suits his purpose. He makes a great number of weak 
or groundless charges, and leaves them unsupported by evi- 
dence. By gratuitous assertions and begging the questions in con- 
troversy, he is enabled to make a great parade of consequences, 
which no more result from our principles than from the plainest 
Scripture doctrines. This course might have succeeded some four 
or five centuries ago, when a blindfolded priest-ridden people, were 
persuaded to put their souls under the care of a selfish clergy, who 
took care to get their money, but cared for nothing else. But it 
ought to be remembered that we live in other times ! — in times 
when many are not only disposed to seek the truth for themselves, 
but, under the blessings of civil and religious liberty, have 
grown up into a capacity for reflection, and a maturity of judg- 
ment, which will secure them from such puerile attempts to im- 
pose upon them. 

I am much mistaken, if on religious subjects, my opponent 
be not a century or two behind many of his cotemporaries — 
Calvin who lived two hundred and seventy years ago, had some 
views on the subjects now in discussion, which prove, tbat he 
had much clearer light than " Paul" — which furnish evidence 
that his mind was illuminated to make a truer estimate of the 
nature and effects of Divine " Internal Light" than my oppo- 
nent seems capable of doing. "We say," says Cahin, " that 
¥ we have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit 
" which is of God, by whose teaching we know those things that 
6i are given us of God — the Apostle Paul acco nts those the 
" sons of God who are actuated by the spirit of God — but some 
i( will have the children of God actuated by their own spirits 
'* without the spirit of God. He will have us call God Father, 
" the spirit dictating that term to us, which only can witness to 



£16 

ii our spirits that we are the children of God. These, though 
" they cease not to call upon God, do nevertheless dismiss the 
" Spirit, by whose guiding he is rightlij to he called upon — He de- 
" nies them to he the sons of God, or the servants of Christ, 
" who are not led by his spirit, but these feign a Christianity 
" that needs not the spirit of Christ ! — He takes away the hope 
" of a blessed resurrection unless we feel the spirit residing in 
66 us, but these feign a hope without any such feeling," See Cal- 
vin, Inst. Chap. 2. 

What Calvin has said of some who in his own time " feigned a 
Christianity that needed not the spirit," applies with equal force 
to all modern feigners of the same kind. If my opponent had 
had as much light as Calvin on the subject, he would not have 
written to us against a doctrine, which is the peculiar glory of 
Christianity — a doctrine which elevates it above any other Reli- 
gion that was ever promulgated since the fall of our first parents 
from their paradisical state. His essays against this doctrine 
are so many Witnesses, commissioned by that awful Instrument, 
'* The Press," to go down to posterity, the Evidences of his 
dark and carnal state, whilst professing to be a Teacher of that 
Religion whose peculiar characteristic is "Divine internal 
Light." [This Letter was here divided in the Repository.] 



Saturday, Feb. 9, 1823. 

LETTER XX. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles oe god." 
1 Pet. iv. 11. 

For Amicus, both as a writer and as a man, the author of these 
Letters entertains an unfeigned esteem. Towards him and to- 
wards the other members of your Society, whatever you may 
think, he feels nothing but benevolence. Of the piety of some of 
your members, I do not permit myself to doubt ; but your far- 
famed morality I attribute, principally to your rigid discipline. 
To the intended aspersions and insinuations of Amicus against 
the character of his supposed antagonist, no other answer need 
be returned than a quotation which I hope, for the sake of him- 
self and his readers, he will remember : 6i As I shall attack no 
one's person, arraign no one's motives, but simply oppose princi- 
ples and doctrines ; no one need expect me to notice personal in- 
vective, hard names, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober ar- 
guments." Letter I. For your doctrines I confess, i have not 
the least partiality, and from them I will not promise to with- 
hold any epithet which I think they deserve. 



217 

I have lately been struck very much with the similarity of your 
doctrine in regard to the Scriptures to that of the Socinians. Like 
them you profess a great respect for the Bible, but make little use of 
its contents farther than they suit your purposes. Like them you 
admit a degree of inspiration and Divine guidance, but deny a 
plenary inspiration. Like them you set up a standard superior 
to the written word ; they idolize Reason, you Internal Light. 
They deny the perfection of the present Canon ; so do you. They 
are always prating about " false translations," " various read- 
ings," the " ignorance," "prejudice" and " mistakes" of the 
Apostles; so are you. They reject the Mysteries of Scripture, 
the Trinity, the Atonement, Everlasting Punishment, at least 
they say nothing on these subjects ; so do you. (There is 
every reason to fear you agree with them in the doctrine of 
Universal Salvation. I never yet saw or heard a sentiment in 
your Books or Sermons which implied your belief in eternal con- 
demnation. And I call upon Amicus to avow your sentiments 
on this important subject. J challenge him to deny the charge 
contained in this parenthesis.) 

In my last communication, besides bringing twenty-one Ar- 
guments against your doctrine of Internal light, (but one of 
which has Amicus even essayed to answer,) I showed the ten- 
dency of your doctrine in six particulars. With this statement 
your advocate finds great fault, and yet not a single charge does 
he explicitly deny ! In the first place, I asserted that it led you 
to " deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and to attri- 
bute as much inspiration to Christians now as to Peter and John." 
He rejects the word " plenary" as unscriptural, and substitutes 
the equivocal word " sufficient ;" but with regard to the latter 
clause, says not a word ! Is not this a tacit admission of its 
truth ? Again ; I charged you with i( neglecting the Bible as not 
necessary to a knowledge of the will of God." He says, as the 
Socinians also do, we do not neglect the Scriptures, we have a 
high respect for the Bible, and inculcate its perusal on our peo- 
ple ; but he does not say they are necessary to a knowledge of 
the will of God. The third charge of ** questioning the authen- 
ticity and correctness of our present Bible" he does not touch, be- 
cause it cannot be denied. Again ; 1 charged you with denying 
to the Bible the names of the " Gospel," <* Revelation," "Word 
of God;" and Amicus admits you give them no higher title than 
the " Holy Scriptures," and " Scriptures of truth." The charge 
of rejecting some part of the Bible as not inspired, he does not 
deny. The charge of denying the leading doctrines of the Scrip- 
tures, to wit, Total Depravity, Vicarious Righteousness, Trini- 
ty, Resurrection, Everlasting Punishment he answers by call* 
ing them " heathenish divinity ! ! !" 
28 



218 

Yet, gentle reader, this is the very man who after fearing 
explicitly to deny a single charge, and after leaving twenty of 
my arguments unanswered, can accuse me of making "ground- 
less charges,' 5 and not answeiing two or three of his last objec- 
tions .'! Whether I have not generally taken all suitable notice 
of his arguments, and answered them effectually, let the public 
judge. Nothing but want of room prevented my answering 
those to which with such confidence he refers. Reader, here 
they are. 

Obj. 1. " In opposing the doctrine of Internal light, you op- 
pose the Holy Spirit, the two being one and the same." (This 
is a general objection running through the whole of your essays.) 
No such thing* We adore the Holy Spirit, and acknowledge 
Him as our only Teacher; we oppose what you call " Internal 
Light," as a Pretender, Impostor and Usurper, whom your So- 
ciety and others have set up in opposition to the Spirit. The 
Holy Spirit teaches us through the Scriptures and according to 
their plain and obvious import ; Internal Light teaches you 
without the Scriptures, and as a necessary consequence, often 
against the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit commands us to bring 
Internal Light to the bar of the written word ; Internal Light 
refuses to pass the ordeal. They are by no means the same. 

Obj. 2. " Christ promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples to 
teach them all things." John xiv* 26. True, and the promises 
extend to us as well as to the Apostles, but in a very different 
sense. As the Apostles were to lay the Foundation of the gos- 
pel church ; — to make many new revelations and utter predic- 
tions of events for centuries to come ; — as the most important 
truths they were to teach, were not yet committed to writing , 
and could not therefore be known by them in an ordinary way, — 
the Spirit was promised to them as an immediate, extraordina- 
ry and independent Teacher. In this they were as highly exalted 
above us, or above common Christians, as Isaiah, Jeremiah and 
Daniel were exalted above their cotemporary saints. Moreover, 
as the Gentile converts (not having as yet a written gospel) could, 
tiot come to the knowledge of the truth in an ordinary way, upon 
them also was conferred an extraordinary portion of the Holy 
Spirit. Hence gifts of Miracles, Tongues, Prophecy were 
granted to many besides the Apostles in that day. 

But since all that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles taught, has 
been under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, coinmitted 
to writing, the same extraordinary inspiration is no longer ne- 
cessary. We need only the common illumination of the Spirit 
to show us the truth, the beauty and excellence of the written 
word. To call this common influence u Inspiration," is belit- 
tling the term and confounding what is ordinary with what is 
extraordinary. The gifts of Tongues and Miracles have ceas- 



210 

ed, because, since Christianity being written, can address us in 
a rational way, these extraordinary arguments are no longer ne- 
cessary. For the same reason Inspiration has ceased. God 
is economical and will not waste his power, nor work a miracle 
to accomplish what may be accomplished by ordinary means. 
The Spirit no longer acts in us as an Independent Teacher, but 
instructs us instrumentally through his written word. 

But has not every Christian " an unction from the Holy One 
to teach him all things — so that he needeth no man to teach him?" 
1 John ii. 20, 27. Certainly, every Christian who reads the 
Scriptures with a sincere desire to know the truth, has the 
witness of the Spirit to their truth, so that he needs no man 
to tell him " this is the word of God." For he beholds there 
the Image of God and is sure that they came from God, — 
more sure than any mere Philosopher can be, when he looks up- 
on the heavens, that " God made the worlds." And this will 
explain some of your favorite texts : "He that believeth hath the 
witness in himself" — " If we receive the witness of men, the 
witness of God is greater" 1 John v. 9. 10. Thus our Lord's 
promise to send the Spirit is fulfilled without putting ourselves 
on a par with the Apostles in point of inspiration, or making 
internal light our rule. 

Obj. 3. " Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not the Scriptures, 
yet had an infallible rule." Should we grant they had an ex- 
traordinary portion of the spirit it would not follow that we are 
to expect the same, and that the Scriptures are not our rule ; 
because before a written revelation was given such immediate 
instruction was more necessary than at present. But the whole 
argument is a mere quibble. If these patriarchs had not the 
Scriptures, they had what is the same thing external revelation ; 
and their internal light was in exact proportion. The first light 
Adam ever had of a way of salvation was the external promise, 
Gen. iii. 15. 6i The seed of the woman shall bruise the ser- 
pent's head." The external revelations given before the days of 
Moses were the only rule of faith in those days. And since 
they have been embodied in the Book of Genesis, the Spirit will 
never be at the trouble of revealing them again ! And the same 
may be said of all the truths of the Bible, since the Spirit has 
committed them to writing, he will reveal them no more, but 
gives us the writing as a substitute for immediate inspiration. 
The Patriarchs had a rule addressed to their external senses as 
well as we. 

Obj. 4. i( Salvation is attainable without the Scriptures, the 
Scriptures therefore, are not the Rule of Faith." Let Amicus 
produce one instance (except Infants and Idiots and others in- 
capable of faith, or of being called in an external way) of a 
person brought to the knowledge of Christ without an acquaint 



220 

taiice with external revelation, and we will admit the force of 
his argument. Till then we shall deny the fact. Rom x. 14. 

Obj. 5. " You leave millions of mankind in a most pitiable 
state." Granted. We leave them (doctrinally) where your So- 
ciety would (practically) forever leave them, — without the light 
of Revelation, without hope and without God in the world ! — 
** What a cruel doctrine is this !": — Is that argument drawn from 
Scripture, or from feeling ? Declaim as loudly as you please 
about the «• partiality, cruelty and tyranny of God," all this is 
no argument with those who make the Scripture their only rule. 
Yours is an argument drawn from feeling (or internal light) in 
direct contradiction to the word of God. You set up your- 
selves as judges what it is right and Jit for Almighty God to 
df>; thus presuming to "re-judge his judgments, be the God of 
God !" In regard to the state of the heathen, you set up your 
internal light against both Scripture and facts. Facts (some 
of which I will detail hereafter) show that the state of the 
heathen now is the same as in the days of the Apostles, 
when describing their character, Paul strings twenty-three vi- 
ces on one string, (Rom. i. 29, 31.) And the nations which have 
not the Scriptures, have the same light which the ancient Ro- 
mans, Corinthians and Ephesians had before the Apostles came, 
in other words, they are " without Christ, aliens from the com- 
monwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of promise, 
having no hope, and without God in the world." The only 
spirit that works in them, is " the Prince of the power of the air, 
the same who now worketh in the children of disobedience :" 
Eph. ii. 2, 12. All the light they have is the light of Nature, 
Conscience and a few scattered rays of external revelation.- — 
" But why has not God sent them the Bible." — It belongs as 
much to you as to us to decide that question. I would simply 
answer, for the same reason that he did not provide a Saviour 
for the devils, — that he leaves any of mankind to perish — that 
lie denies the heathen science, civilization and liberty, — because 
his justice does not require him to bestow any blessing upon sin- 
ner.s, and because he chooses to do what he will with his own; 
and I may add, because he works by means, and "will call Chris- 
tendom to a strict account for not having long ere this sent the 
Bible and the Gospel to every creature. 

Obj. 6. "If any man speak (preach) let him speak as the 
oracles of God, — this oracle is internal light, therefore internal 
light is a rule for preachers." This objection refers to the only 
one of all my arguments which Amicus has attempted to answer, 
and the awkwardness of his answer confirms my argument. 
" Oracle" (in the singular number) always denotes the voice of 
God speaking from the Temple : " Oracles" (plural) always de- 
note the things spoken. Thus Stephen speaking of the fathers. 



221 

says (i who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Acts vii. 
38. Pray, how could Moses and the Jewish fathers transmit 
the u Oracle" or voice of God to their descendants ! But any 
one can see how they could transmit the u . Oracles" or things 
spoken, to wit, by writing. Two things then are taught in this 
text of Peter, " If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles 
of God," first, that the Scriptures are not a " dead letter" but 
the Lively Oracles of God; and secondly, that all Preachers 
instead of following any internal light, should make the written 
word of God their Rule. PAUL. 



LETTER XXI.— Continued from page 212. 

I will now notice some of Paul's assertions respecting the 
tendency of this doctrine. 1st. He says, " It leads you to de- 
ny the plenary Inspiration of the Apostles." What he means 
by this unscriptural term he has not explained to us. But we 
believe that the Apostles were fully and sufficiently inspired to 
record the great and all-important truths of Christianity ; and 
that they did so record them to the comfort and confirmation of 
their successors in the Christian faith." As we acknowledge 
that they wrote under "the guidance of the Word or Spirit of 
God," we admit in the most unequivocal manner, the Divine 
Inspiration of the Apostles — My opponent's assertion falls to 
the ground of course. 

2nd. He says, " It leads you to neglect the Scriptures as not 
necessary to a knowledge of the divine will." — Now I affirm, 
that the Holy Spirit never led any one to neglect the Scriptures. 
I am sure it never led us to neglect them — on the contrary it 
has led us to search them diligently — to peruse them carefully — 
to practice the doctrines they record — and what is more, it has led 
the Society, as a religious body, to recommend and enjoin on their 
individual members the " frequent reading of the Holy Scrip- 
tures," and every meeting regularly constituted by the Society, 
is required to report to the general annual meeting of Friends, 
whether its members have complied with this injunction. This 
will be I think a sufficient refutation of the false charge of my 
opponent. 

3d. " It leads you to question the authenticity and cor- 
rectness of our copy of the Bible." What he means by "our copy 
of the Bible" he has not explained. If he mean the translation 
in common use made in the reign of James I. of England, I 
answer — That this translation of the Scriptures is not perfect- 
ly correct we very well know. And it cannot be denied 
that the original copies of the Bible from which the present 



222 

translation was made, were far from being the most perfect,. 
No man who is acquainted with the original tongues and who 
has had the opportunity of comparing our present version with 
them, and with above tfyree hundred ancient manuscripts which 
have since been discovered, should dare to say otherwise. 
Robert Barclay the celebrated Apologist — a man who was 
critically skilled in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, 
has said, that " divers passages in the common translation 
are corrupted and perverted." This sentiment is supported 
by many of the most learned and judicious Commentators 
since his time — it is a sentiment that every revolving year con- 
firms. Dr. Blackwall in his " Sacred classics" when speak- 
ing of the present translation, says « Innumerable instances 
might be adduced of faulty translations of the Divine Original, 
which either weaken its sense, or, debase and tarnish the beauty 
of its language ;" he adds, " No man can be so sup vrstitiously 
devoted to them, but he must own that a considerable number of 
passages are weakly and imperfectly translated^ and not a few 
falsely rendered.' 99 Waterland, Doddridge, Wesley, Wynne, 
Pilkington, Furver, Worsley, Lowth, Seeker, Durell, White, 
Kennicott, Green, Blany, Geddes, Symonds, Wakefield, New- 
come, with many others that I could mention, particularly the 
present Dr. Adam Clarke, whose learning has rendered him one 
of the most conspicuous characters of the present age, all con- 
cur with Dr. Blackwall in the principal views he has expressed 
on this subject. Now it would be a very singular property of Di- 
vine Light, to sanction the present translation in those passages, 
where, as Dr. Blackwall has affirmed, " the Divine Original 
is falsely rendered !" — Yet I will venture to affirm, what I am 
sure cannot be controverted, that no Society of People has less 
referred, in disputed points, to the imperfection of the present 
translation, than the Society of Friends. 

But what has a just regard for the Sacred Scriptures, to do 
with the present translation of t^em ? Does Christianity or 
common sense impose on Christians such a regard for the Scrip- 
tures, that we must reverence a false translation of any part of 
them ? that we must submit to doctrines, or embrace opinions, 
which the original writers never held ? It would be absurd to 
affirm it ? Nevertheless we believe, that even in the present 
translation, the divine truths of Christianity are so fully unfold- 
ed that the real Christian will not be at any loss to discover in 
it, sufficient to confirm him in all the essentials of our holy faith ; 
and therefore we may very rationally account for the. fact, that 
there is no Religious Society who is less anxious for a new trans- 
lation of the Scriptures than the Society of Friends. For my 
own part I believe that all the doctrines we hold, may, on the 
ground of fair argument and rational demonstration, be defend- 



223 

ed and confirmed by numerous clear unequivocal passages, in 
the present translation of the Holy Scriptures. 

Now if Blackwall's assertions be true — and I think " Paul" 
will not venture to contradict them — on what a boundless ocean 
and without a compass do the principles of my opponent leave 
us ! — In Letter III. he says " Now suppose a word or clause in 
a prophecy be altered, it may falsify the whole." If then the 
alteration of a word or clause may falsify the whole — if many 
passages be falsely rendered — If Dr. Mill have "ascertained 
thirty thousand various readings, and Welstein more than a 
million" — how can we possibly know, without the surer evidence 
of the Holy Spirit, that we have the real sentiments of the in- 
spired penmen ? It is impossible ! 

But a more extensive difficulty arises, and must ever remain, 
on my opponent's principles — Eusebius informs us, and we have 
many other authorities for the fact — that several of the Scrip- 
ture Books, now universally received as canonical, were con- 
sidered doubtful for the first three hundred years after Christ 
- — particularly the Epistle of James — the second of Peter—the 
second and third of John — that of Jude, and the Book of Re- 
velations. Cyril, A. D. 348, rejected the Revelations, as did 
the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 363. Now, without a divine 
" immediate Revelation" how can we ever ascertain whether 
the ancients were right in rejecting these Books, or we right 
in receiving them — Right cannot appertain to both. Can the 
Scriptures inform us on these points ? Certainly not. How 
then can this dark cloud of uncertainty be dissipated ? I an- 
swer, by, and only by, the clear inshining of that if light which 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world ;" or as the late 
learned and enlightened William Jones expressed it "by the 
Influence of God's Holy Spirit clearing up our judgments" — It 
was, I apprehend on this view of the subject, that Calvin ex- 
pressed the following sentiment — " Let this remain a firm truth, 
that he only whom the Holy Spirit hath persuaded, can repose him" 
self on the Scriptures with a true certainty." Inst. Cap. 7. lib 1. 
From all of which I draw the following argument— 

If " he only whom the Holy Spirit hath persuaded can re- 
pose himself on the Scriptures with a true certainty" — If only 
by "the influence of God's Holy Spirit clearing up our judg- 
ments" we can distinguish between the inspired Writings and 
those that are not inspired — then the Holy Spirit, the Christian's 
only divine " Internal Light" is his primary Rule of Faith — 
and then we must be right in judging of the authenticity and 
correctness of any copy of the Bible by this Rule. 

AMICUS. 



234 

Seventh-day, 2 J Mo. 16, lizi. 

LETTER XXII. 

The Editor having thought proper to divide my last Essay, 
and to permit my Opponent to appear between the fractions of 
it— I will postpone the further discussion of the present import- 
ant subject to my next Essay, and proceed to notice a few of 
" Paul's" remarks in his last address to us. 

It appears that my Opponent has taken some offence at what 
he deems personality, and charges me with the indulgence of 
myself in aspersions and insinuations against the character of 
my supposed antagonist" — If I know any thing of my own heart, 
I am sure I should be very sorry to asperse the character of any 
individual with whom I am acquainted, and I should be still 
more cautious of aspersing one with whom I am not acquainted 
— As to personality, " Paul" may rest assured I have used none — 
Through the medium of his Writings I know him — through any 
other medium I have no desire to know him. He has shrouded 
himself in darkness ! — Without telling us whether he is a Catho- 
lic, an Episcopalian, a Baptist or a Presbyterian — he has shot his 
arrows at us under a disguised name — Either through ignorance 
or by design he has misrepresented us in a great number of in- 
stances, and has spared no pains to darken our character ! — at 
one time we are atheistical — at another deistical — sometimes we 
are like the Swedenborgians — then like Anabaptists — Sometimes 
he is "very much struck with our similarity to the Socinians" — 
then to the Vniversalists — During all the time of this attack, he 
is closely wrapped in the mantle of obscurity ! — There let him 
remain — Charity forbids to strip off his disguise, and Amicus 
intends to obey her mandate. 

I have said that "either through ignorance or design he has 
in many instances misrepresented us."— I am inclined to believe 
(what charity would dictate) that " Paul" is really unacquaint- 
ed with the nature and tendency of our leading principle — If it 
were not so, I should be at a loss to account for the fact, that he 
has in several of his communications, charged us with errors, 
against which, we have uniformly borne testimony — these char- 
ges, must with thousands who know us better, directly invali- 
date his assertions, and render all his evidence suspicious. In 
this respect, he labours effectually to defeat his own cause. 
Who has ever heard that Friends " set up Conscience as a 
Guide?" Barclay in his Apology, Prop. VI. Sec. 16. where he 
defines conscience, expressly refutes this idea. — Who has ever 
heard that Friends professed to believe in the Universal Salva- 
tion of all mankind ? I am no stranger to their writings, and I 
can truly say, I never saw the sentiment in any acknowledged 
Writer amongst us. For our sentiments on this subject, let the 



225 

Reader consult the Apology, Prop. VI. Sec. 12. In conformity 
with many unequivocal passages of the Old and New Testament 
we admit, yes we assert, that God has, in his infinite mercy and 
goodness, made Salvation possible to every rational creature — . 
that " a measure or manifestation of the Spirit," as the Apostle 
declares " is given to every man to profit withal. " 1 Cor. xii. 7. 
but we never asserted that every man did so profit by it as 
thereby to become an heir of Salvation — because many have. 
voluntarihj rejected the teaching of this Holy Spirit, and in 
consequence of this rejection, the God of this world hath blinded 
their eyes, so that " the light that was in them has become dark- 
ness, and great has been that darkness/ 99 Matt. vi. 23. As my 
Opponent has " challenged me to deny that we hold the doctrine 
of Universal Salvation, " I will now challenge him to produce a 
single passage from any of our Writings that vindicates that 
doctrine !! 

" Paul" boasts of having brought twenty arguments against 
our doctrine of " Internal Light," and asserts that 1 have only 
answered one of them ! Now I humbly conceive that the numer- 
ous Scripture texts which I adduced to prove the truth of our 
doctrine in this particular, none of which M Paul" has attempted 
to refute, are sufficient to nullify, not only twenty of his argu- 
ments, but utterly to overthrow twenty thousand such flimsy 
supporters of his antiscriptural scheme — That one text of the 
Evangelist is sufficient to settle the question with every man 
who sincerely respects the Holy Scriptures, and humbly submits 
his judgment to the clear testimony of the Inspired Penmen. — 
**He (John) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of 
that light, which was the the true light which lighteth every man 
that cometh into the world. 99 John i. Let my reader consult 
this passage and lie will see that the light here spoken of was 
Christ "the Word of God," — not the Scriptures.' — It was that 
same Divine principle, that all powerful Word by whom the 
worlds were made, " and without him was not any thing made 
that was made." John i. 3. It was that same Divine principle 
of whom it is said, " In him was Life and the Life was the 
Light of Men." It was that same Light of which our Lord 
said, " I am the Light of the World, he that folio weth me shall 
not walk in darkness, bu shall have the Light of Life." John 
viii. 12, It was that same Light of which He again said, 
" While ye have the Light believe in the Light that ye may 
be the Children of the Light. John xii. 35. It was the same 
Light of whom it was predicted that he should be " a Light to 
lighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel." Luke ii. 
32. It is that same Light ot which it is said, that " God who 
commanded the Light to shine out ojt" darkness hath, shined in 
2D 



2&6 

our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of 
God in the face (or appearance) of Jesus Christ." \Z Cor. iv. 6. 
and finally it was the same Light of which it is said, " All 
things that are reproved are made manifest hy the Light, for 
whatsoever doth make manifest is Light, wherefore he saith, 
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ 
shall give thee Light. Eph. v. 13. 

Yet gentle reader, this is the blessed "Internal Light" the 
glorious Luminary of the New Covenant Dispensation, the pe- 
culiar characteristic of the Christian Religion, which "Paul" 
calls an " Ignis fatuus," " a delusion," a " cunningly devised 
fable," " an impostor," " a pretender," " an usurper !" — 

Now I know of none who more " dishonour the Scriptures" 
than those, who while they " say many fine things of them," 
yet who at the same time reject the doctrines which they, in the 
clearest manner, inculcate! — doctrines which are not only ex- 
pressed in the Holy Scriptures, but which are written as with a 
sunbeam on the fleshly table of every heart! — Where is the 
rational creature under Heaven, that can say he has never felt 
the secret influence of this Divine " Internal Light," reproving 
him for sin — approving him for obedience — strengthening him 
in virtue ? I have never met with one ! and I believe I shall 
never find such an one — " a' Kcmpis" and many more among 
the Catholics have borne ample testimony to its blessed effects. 
— " Calvin" acknowledged it — The " Church of England, with 
their Holy army of Martyrs," have explicitly proclaimed it — 
Bunyan and Wesley preached it — the Hindoos in their Veda 
confess it — and the Savages (as they are called) of North Ameri- 
ca have given the most decided testimony to its efficacy — in 
proof of which, I have at hand more testimony than would fill 
twenty numbers of the Christian Repository. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, Feb. 23, I8W. 

LETTER XXI. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

" We are not as many who corrupt the word of God, — handling 
the word of God deceitfulltj. 1 Cor. ii. 17. — iv. 2. 

The charge of holding the doctrine of Universal Salvation, 
Amicus does not dare to deny. His artful management to avoid 
a direct answer, must have betrayed him to every reader. 
Whatever difference of opinion may be tolerated among you as 
to the duration of future punishment, you all agree infixing some 
limit to the misery of the wicked in another world. Whether 



227 

you hold to annihilation, temporary punishment, or no punish- 
ment at all, you do not believe in the eternal condemnation of any 
sinner. And I again challenge Amicus to deny this charge,— 
or to quote from your standards one sentence which contradicts 
the doctrine of the final salvation of all men. The reason of 
your silence on this subject (as well as on the Trinity) is ob- 
vious ; if the doctrine of Universal Salvation were once openly 
avowed, all Christians would at once disown you as members of 
the Christian church ; whereas by your silence many arc 
deceived. 

As I foretold, he denies the authenticity and corretkiess of our 
copy of the Bible. First, he revives the stale owjection of 
Hobbes, Toland and Paine and other infidels against the Canon 
of Scripture, asserting that the primitive church "rejected" 
books which we receive, and intimating that the Epistle of 
James, the second of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and 
the Revelations were for a while of disputed authenticity. 
Reader, so was the Resurrection of our Lord questioned for a 
while by some of the disciples, until their unbelief was put to 
shame by overwhelming evidence. Just so with a few of the 
Epistles of the New Testament : — such as were addressed to a 
particular church, as the Epistle to the Romans, Corinthians, 
&c. never were disputed for a moment : the only difference of 
opinion was concerning some of the General Epistles, which not 
being directed to any particular church, hut addressed to the 
church at large, were not so soon authenticated. Before such 
authentication, individuals exercised their own judgment in re- 
gard to these Epistles, some acknowledging, others questioning 
their Divine authority. Yet Amicus well knows, that whatever 
doubt and differences of opinion there might have been at first, 
after due examination, every book of our present Canon was 
unanimously admitted as authentic. And the doubts and scruples 
and jealousy of early Christians on this subject, like the unbe- 
lief of Thomas, are so many proofs that not one of these Epis- 
tles was received but on full conviction of its apostolic a id Di- 
vine authority. 

To say that the Bible depends for its authenticity on the de- 
crees of Councils is a gross slander. It is authenticated in the 
same way with the writings of Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, 
Cesar, Barclay or William Penn, by the testimony of cotem- 
porary witnesses and hy quotations in every subsequent age. 
Should a book now appear purporting to he the work of William 
Penn, of which none of your Society ever before had heard, and 
which contained doctrines inconsistent with the known opinions 
of that good man, and one of your Yearly Meetings should warn 
your members against receiving it as authentic, would this be 
deciding the authenticity of Peuii's real writings? — Not at ail; 



228 

t 

their authenticity was decided before you were born. Should 
several Epistles, purporting to be from your Yearly Meeting in 
London to the Meeting in Philadelphia, be circulating through 
this country, deceiving your members, and your Meeting in 
Philadelphia, after discovering the forgery, should give warning 
to your people, would this public notice constitute the only evi- 
dence on which the authenticity of your genuine annual Epistles 
is founded ? Not at all. The genuineness of the Epistle from 
London in 1810 does not depend on any decree or judgment you 
may hereafter pass. Neither did the genuineness of the Apos- 
tolical epi|tles depend on subsequent decrees of councils (though 
these are a confirmatory evidence,) and such decrees of councils 
would never have been expressed, had it not been for some false 
Epistles which wicked men would have palmed upon the world. 
I receive the Bible, therefore, as authentic, just as I receive the 
works of Barclay or of Penn, not by " immediate revelation," 
but by a train of historical evidence. The authenticity of PauPs 
EpistlevS depends as much on the decisions of Councils, as the 
authenticity of Barclay's Apology depends on the decision of 
your Yearly Meeting and no more ! 

But says Amicus, "many passages are falsely rendered." 
Reader, no human work is absolutely perfect, and therefore time 
has discovered a few unimportant inaccuracies in our present 
translation ; — in one out of a thousand verses some little word 
might be altered for the better. But it was the opinion of the 
learned Selden and also of the best judges of modern times, 
that ** it is tlie best translation in the world and renders the sense 
of the original best." And it is certain that more pains was 
taken with our translation than with any three others now 
extant. 

He objects to the correctness of our present Bible also on ac- 
count of the " Various Readings" of the Manuscripts from 
which the printed edition was taken. 

Reader, remember the large size of the Bible, how many mil- 
lions of times it had been copied before Printing was invented, 
and what a constant miracle it must have required to keep out 
every little error. Yet, as if Providence had interposed to pre- 
serve what it once gave, the difference in the Manuscripts is of 
little or no account ! In the few copies of the little work of Ter- 
ence now extant there are more and greater differences of read- 
ings than in all the Manuscripts of the Bible now in the world ! 

Thus, Reader, you see whither this " Internal Light" leads 
people — even to bring disrepect and contempt upon the Bible ! — 
to treat it, not as the word of God, but as a corrupted, ill-authen- 
ticated, falsely rendered, uncertain piece of human composition ! 

Though Amicus dar e not meet my arguments, and has not an- 
swered one of my objections, I appeal to the public, if I have 



,229 

not taken up his principal objections and answered them specifi- 
cally. Two only remain, and these I have left so long unan- 
swered that the public might perceive what stress you lay upon 
them. They are in fact the pillars of your system, the two legs 
of that mighty Colossus under which you sail so proudly. The 
first is John i. 9. " That was the true light which lighteth eve- 
ry man that cometh into the world ;" and 1 Cor. xii. 7. " The 
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit 
withal." 

As to the latter, it was never intended to support your doc- 
trine; fori. The "manifestation" here spoken oflvas some- 
thing of which the Corinthians were destitute until aWr they be- 
came Christians as is evident from the 2d verse, " Ye know 
that ye were Gentiles carried away to these dumb idols :" As if 
he had said, " Ye are Gentiles (or heathen) no longer, but are 
now Christians and have a manifestation of which in your heath- 
en state you were destitute." 2. The Apostle here refers not to 
the common influences of the Spirit, but to those divers extraor- 
dinary gifts with which the church was favoured in that day. 
As is evident from the ensuing verse, " For to one is given the 
word of wisdom ; to another, the word of knowledge; to anoth- 
er, faith ; to another, gifts of healing; to another, working of 
miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another, discerning of spi- 
rits ; to another, divers kinds of tongues ; to another, the inter- 
pretation of tongues ; — but all these worketh that one and the 
selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For 
as the body is one and has many members, and all the members, 
of that body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." 
From this it is evident he is here speaking of Christ's "body" 
the church, and not of the whole world, and " every man" means 
no more than every member of the church. The "manifestation of 
the Spirit" is here explained to mean " healing, miracles, dis- 
cerning spirits, gifts of tongues, &c." of course does not apply 
to us, much less to all mankind. 3. The simple meaning of the 
text is " let every Christian use his gifts for the edification of oth^ 
ers," in fact is the same with 1 Pet. iv. 10, "As every man 
hath received the gift, so let him minister the same one to anoth- 
er." This no more implies that all mankind have received spi- 
ritual gifts, than that all mankind are real saints. The Apos- 
tle speaking of the Day of Judgment, says " then shall every 
man have praise of God." 1 Cor. iv. 5. Is he speaking of all 
mankind or of all Christians only ? 4. All Scripture teaches that 
none but Christians have the Spirit of God, The Ephesians, be- 
fore their conversion, were under " the Prince of the power of 
the air, the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedi- 
ence." Chap. ii. 2. John, addressing the disciples, says, "Great- 
er is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1 John iv.. 



230 

4. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of 
his." Rom. viii. 2. From these passages it is evident that all 
men have not the Spirit of God, and therefore your construction 
of this text is a perversion of its real meaning. 

As to the other text, John i. 9. " That was the true Light 
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," it is more 
plausible, hut when viewed in connexion with the context and 
with other Scripture, cannot support your doctrine. The Evan- 
gelist is drawing a contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus 
Christ. Though John was a light, a " burning and shining 
light," ye^e was not to he compared with Jesus Christ. John 
was a lighTr for a short time, to a few of that region and that 
generation, but Jesus Christ was the source of all the light that 
ever was in the world. He is the Author of all the light, whether 
physical, intellectual, moral or spiritual, which any child of 
Adam ever possessed. But in what way he enlightens, whether 
by Reason, by Conscience, by his Spirit, or by Scripture, is not 
said ; or how much he enlightens any man or every man, wheth- 
er he enlightens all equally, or siifficiently, this text does not 
state, and we are left to learn from other Scriptures. This text 
teaches no more than that He is the source of all the light there is 
in the world. 

Obj. " When he is called the " Light of the world," does not 
this imply that he enlightens every man siifficiently and saving- 
ly?" No ; in Matt. v. 14. he says to his disciples, " Ye are the 
light of the world." Does this imply that Christians afford s?//- 
fcient and saving light to all mankind ? Certainly not. He only 
wishes to put a high emphasis on their character in this respect. 
Again, he says, "Ye are the salt of the earth." Does this im- 
ply that they season and salt every individual of the human race ? 
— or does it specify how much seasoning they communicate to' 
each of their fellow creatures ? — or does it imply that they sea- 
son every individual siifficiently? Certainly not. — Why then do 
you lay so much stress upon this passage, in the direct face of 
so many passages which speak of the " darkjrtaces of the earth," 
the places 'f where no vision is," and where of course, " the 
people perish," whose times are " times of ignorance which God 
winks at!" Again, John iv. 42. Christ is called " the Saviour 
of the world." This as much implies that he actually saves all 
mankind, as his being the "Light of the world," implies that he 
actually enlightens every individual with saving light. The 
meaning of these passages plainly is, that he is the onxy Saviour 
and the only Light of men. So that this much abused passage 
by no means teaches that Christ enlightens all mankind with 
*.' Internal Light," thus giving them a guide superior to the 
Scriptures. 

And here I am willing to rest this subject. Much more may 

I 



231 

be said on both sides, but the public has seen and weighed the 
leading arguments on both sides of this question, why then not 
pass to another topic ? The public wish to know your sentiments 
on the subject of the Trinity, — whether you are Arians, Sa- 
bellians or Socinians, — or what reason you have for omitting 
to make the doctrine of the Trinity a part of your faith ? 

PAUL. 



Seventh'iayi^l Mo. 2, r3z2. 

LETTER XXIII. 

Paul commences his last Address by saying u The charge of 
holding the doctrine of Universal Salvation Amicus dare not 
deny." Now I thought I had fully denied this charge when I 
said "we never asserted that every man did so profit by the light 
of the Holy Spirit as thereby to become an heir of Salvation." 
The inference is clear, if a man become not an heir of Salvation 
he cannot inherit it — the heir only can become possessed of the In- 
heritance, Salvation implies a being saved from sin and its con- 
sequent misery. If this blessed work be not experienced, be not 
affected in this life, I know of no clear passage of Scripture that 
conveys the idea that it can be effected in a future state. To be 
explicit then, 1 do positively deny that " we hold the doctrine 
of Universal Salvation" — that all men will finally be saved. In 
my last I challenged " Paul" to produce a single passage from 
any of our writings that vindicates that doctrine. The proof 
of the charge rests with him. — .'*.' No man is bound to prove a 
negative." — " Paul" being the accuser, if he leave his accusa- 
tion without clear proof he must stand condemned for detraction. 

Before I proceed further, I would just say, that if Paul would 
always state his authorities for any charge he may have to make 
against us, he might save himself and me much trouble, and 
moreover might become entitled to the character of a fair oppo- 
nent, to which at present I think he can have no claim. Facts 
alone are entitled to consideration. — Assertions without proof 
cannot have weight with a discerning public, to whom our prin- 
ciples are on many points so well known that any misrepresenta- 
tion of them can only injure the character of him who misrepre- 
sents them. But "Paul" knows that it is easier to make charges 
than to prove them ; and he loves to travel a smooth road. 
" As I foretold" says Paul " Amicus denies the authenticity 
and correctness of our copy of the Bible." Here my opponent 
claims the character of a prophet ! Although he denies " Im- 
mediate Revelation" it will not be difficult to prove that he has 
had the advantage of it in this instance. In Letter XX. he has 



attempted to answer some of " Amicus V arguments whicli did 
not appear until one week afterwards !!! — In that address he 
says M Amicus rejects the word plenary as unscriptural and sub- 
stitutes the equivocal word sufficient," Now I did not publicly 
reject the word " plenary" until one week after this assertion 
of " Paul," nor did I then substitute the word " sufficient,' but 
the words "fully and sufficiently." Again in the same Number 
he asserts that " Amicus says we do not neglect the Scriptures, 
we have a high respect for the Bible, and inculcate its perusal on 
our people." Now " Amicus" had never said any thing like 
this, until a week after the publication of this assertion !!! 
From this statement it appears that " Paul" has (through the 
favour of the Editor) had access to my manuscript (the very 
one that was, subjected to dissection) and in the fervency of his 
zeal has betrayed his partial friend ! Now if I have any just 
idea of the obligations of an Editor, they require that anony- 
mous manuscripts sent for insertion are a sacred deposit to whicli 
no man should have access but the Editor and his compositors ! 
A violation of this rule has enabled my opponent to appear in 
the character of " a prophet" 

But as this circumstance is not connected with the argument 
of the present question, we will let it pass with a bare notice of 
the fact — a fact which may serve, however, to shew that the 
predictive powers of my opponent are not very miraculous !!! 

" Paul" says " Amicus denies the authenticity of the Bible." 
This assertion is without proof! I have never denied it. Its 
authenticity is admitted by us all ! The question is not — wheth- 
er the Bible is authentic or not — it is, " By what means has it 
been authenticated?" 

Let us now see how my opponent answers this question. 
" The Bible is authenticated in the same way with the writings 
of Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, Ceasar, &e. — by the testimony 
of cotemporary witnesses, and by quotations in every subsequent 
age." So then, the authenticity of the Bible stands upon the 
same evidence, as the authenticity of Pagan Writers !!! I think 
my opponent need not hereafter go from home to look for 
those who "dishonour the Scriptures !" To rest their au then- 
ticity and consequently their divine authority on the ground 
of heathen writers is to dishonour them in the grossest manner ! If 
tlus is the way that the professed friends of the Scriptures vindi- 
cate their honour, the Christian world has great reason to say 
" save me from my friends." How much more rational, how 
much more dignified is the view of Amicus as expressed in his 
last essay ? Instead of resting our faith on the sandy foundation 
of human opinion — on the conflicting testimony of weak mortals, 
we place it in the certain evidence of the Holy Spirit ! How 
" quotations in every subsequent age" can authenticate the 



233 

Bible "Paul" may perhaps be able to explain. If a quotation 
from a Book can authenticate that Book, it would be a very easy 
thing to authenticate the travels of Lemuel Gulliver, or the life 
and adventures of Robinson Crusoe. — Quotations from any work 
can only shew that be who makes the quotation received it as au- 
thority — they can neither prove its genuineness nor its authenti- 
city, unless indeed the quoter were infallible. 

" To say that the Bible depends for its authenticity on the 
decrees of Councils is a gross slander." Very true Paul ! But 
what is this to the point ? Did Amicus ever say so ? Or, did 
" Paul" only wish to make his reader think he did ? — the whole 
scope of my essay went to prove a very different position : e. g. 
that its authenticity depended upon nothing less than divine evi- 
dence. But if it be & gross slander tq say that the Bible depends 
for its authenticity on the decrees of Councils, what kind of 
slander is that which says, " it is authenticated in the same way 
witb Pagan writings ?" 

Now from " Paul's" former essays one would suppose he 
would have treated the Councils of what he calls " the Church 
of- Christ for one thousand three hundred years" with more res- 
pect than he has lately done. I remember he once quoted a 
Council of sixty-six Bishops as his authority for his Sprinkling 
system ! and was much offended with " Amicus" for rejecting 
their evidence. " Amicus" has always had a \evy low opinion 
of Synods and Councils. I do not know how "Paul" now stands 
affected towards Synods — but it appears he has sadly fallen out 
with Councils / 

In his last essay Paul confounds the meaning of the word 
" Genuine" with that of the word "Authentic" — the late Bishop 
of Land aff has clearly demonstrated their difference. A. genu- 
ine work is one that was really written by the person whose 
name it bears. " The genuineness of the Epistle from London 
of 1810 does not depend on any decree or judgment you may 
hereafter pass." True. Its "genuineness" as well as that of 
every other work depends on nothing but the fact, that it was 
written by its supposed author. Now I hold that the genuineness 
of Scripture, has nothing to do with its authenticity. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews would be entitled to the same authority 
( — would equally claim our veneration and respect, if it could be 
proved, that the Apostle Paul was not its author, as if it could 
be clearly shewn, that it was actually written by this great and 
excellent minister of Christ. The truth and divine excellence 
of this Epistle cannot, in the nature of things, be affected by 
the opinions that men may entertain as to who was the writer of 
it. It is a matter of no importance who may assert that " two 
30 



134 

and two make lour," or who may say that •* the angles of a 
triangle are equal to two right angles ;" neither is it of any im- 
portance whether we helieve with Lardner, Wetstein, and others, 
that Paul wrote this Epistle, or whether we helieve with Grotius, 
Leclerc, and Michselis that it was written by some other per- 
son ! — The learned world has been making a great stir about 
trifles ! — Had they been as careful to test its excellence by the 
infallible Touchstone of the Holy Spirit, as they ha\e been to 
ascertain who wrote it, they would have come to a far more 
satisfactory result ! they would have discovered so many infal- 
lible evidences of Divine Inspiration in this Epistle, as would 
have removed every doubt of its divine authenticity, and settled 
their minds in a holy certainty that the Author whoever he might 
be, was under "the immediate guidance of the Word or Spirit 

of GOD. 

From what has been said on this subject, it must be evident, 
that " a work may be authentic that is not genuine." As the 
authenticity of any Scripture book does not depend on the deci- 
sions of Councils — neither does it depend upon its genuineness — 
it depends upon the evidence of the Holy Spirit that it was writ- 
ten under the influence of Divine Inspiration. We are not sure 
that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews ! We never can be in- 
fallibly certain on this point, unless it be sealed on our minds by 
the Holy Spirit — And as it is a matter of no importance, wheth- 
er Paul wrote it, or whether he did not write it, I suppose we 
shall never know who was the real author of it. If it were 
written by Divine Inspiration it can make no difference to us 
who was the person inspired of God to write it. Its excellence, 
its authority solely depends on the question — whether it be the 
product of Divine Inspiration or not? — And this question can 
only be settled by the evidence of the Holy Spirit witnessing to 
our Spirits that it is of God — / believe it was written by the 
Apostle Paul — Grotius, Leclerc, Michselis and others, who had far 
more learning than Amicus or his opponent, believed that it w^as 
not written by Paul ! Now if the divine Truths contained in this 
Epistle be sealed on our minds by the Holy Spirit, what need 
we care who wrote it ? — Noticing at all ! It is a matter of perfect 
indifference. With the evidence that this Epistle was written 
under divine direction I will cheerfully leave my opponent to 
fight with Grotius, Leclerc and Michselis on the subject of its 
genuineness. x 

Let us now return to " Paul" and view r him struggling under 
the w eight of Scripture evidence adduced by " Amicus" to prove 
the universality and divine nature of that blessed " Light that 
lighteneth every man that cometh into the world — And first, 



235 

where lie undertakes to refute the Apostle Paul, l Cor. xii. :.-- 
" The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit 
withal." The Apostle in this Chapter, to which I refer the read- 
er, shews, first, that all religious qualifications are received, 
not through the Scriptures, but by the Spirit — Secondly — that 
this Spirit is given to every man, that we may, through its divine 
efficacy profit in the way of salvation. My opponent says that 
" every man" only means every member of the church ! this is 
taking too much for granted. Neither text nor context warrant 
the assertion ! That the true Light, like the luminary of day, 
shines on all, is certain, but many shut themselves in the dark — 
for "this is the condemnation that Light has come into the world 
and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds 
were evil." 

This " ipse dixit" argument of my opponent, which is contra- 
ry to the plain words of the text, is refuted by the same Apostle 
to Titus, ii. 11. where he says " The Grace of God that bring- 
eth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that de- 
nying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, 
righteously, and Godly in this present world." Here the Apos- 
tle shews 1st. that this manifestation of the Spirit, is of God's 
free mercy to the soul — " the Grace of God." 2d. that this Grace 
is saving grace, — " it bringeth salvation," — 3d. that it is uni- 
versally manifested — it*' hath appeared to all men" — and 4th. 
that it is a Teacher, an instructor of the soul in the things neces- 
sary to salvation — "teaching us that denying ungodliness and 
worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously and Godly." 

Secondly. Where he endeavours to refute the Evangelist, 
John i. 9. " There was a man sent from God, whose name was 
John — the same came for a Witness to bear witness to the 
Light. — He was not that Light but was sent to bear witness of 
that Light that was the true Light that lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world." Now my opponent says — " The Evan- 
gelist is here drawing a contrast between John and Christ." 
Was ever any assertion so untrue ? So far from drawing any 
contrast between two lights, he here positively asserts " John 
was not that Light" but merely a witness to that Light ! — 
"Paul" then admits that Christ is "the Author of all Light." 
But the text does not say, that " Christ is " the author of Light." 
But that " Christ is himself the Light, My opponent then says, 
"In what way Christ enlightens, whether by Reason, by Con- 
science, by his Spirit, or by the Scriptures is not said ! This is 
just such an assertion as we might expect from an honest Deist." 
Now 1 think the Scriptures do \cvy clearly tell us in what way 
Gnd enlightens us. "For God who commanded the Light to 



236 

shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts." 2 Cor. iv. 6. 
I am apprehensive that my opponent, if he be not more guarded 
in future, will prove himself a Champion of infidelity instead of 
an advocate for the Truth of Jesus. 

AMICUS. 



Saturday, March p» 18:2. 

LETTER XXII. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

" If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that dark- 
ness!" Matt. vi. 23. 

Amicus has become quite querulous of late. If we may judge 
from his late Essays, and from the Notes of the Editor, he is ve- 
ry uneasy and anxious for some excuse to leave the field of con- 
troversy. Trifles area vexation to some men; a "grasshop- 
per is a burden" to those who cannot support themselves. Un- 
able to answer Paul's arguments, he falls to quarrelling with 
the Editor ! Whether this be a sign of victory, or of mortification 
the public will readily judge. If Amicus from a visit to the 
Printing Office, can draw any new argument for Internal Light, 
I beg the Editor to let him visit it every day. — Any thing gen- 
tle reader, to turn your attention from the main question. 

Wliy does not Amicus give a /air and honest statement of your 
sentiments on the subject of Future Punishment ! Does he hold 
that all tlte wicked will be annihilated? — or that after a tempora- 
ry purgatory, pari will be saved, and the rest blotted from exist- 
ence ? Now he may hold either of these sentiments in perfect 
consistency with all that lie has said. " We have never asserted 
that every man becomes an heir of salvation." True, but you 
never teach that any man will become an heir of eternal damna- 
tion. " If the work of salvation be not effected in this life, I 
know of no clear passage of Scripture, which conveys the idea 
that it can be effected in a future state." By which you intimate 
that there are some passages, not very clear to be sure, but some 
which favour the idea that " salvation will be effected in a future 
state ;" and also, that there is no clear passage against such a 
notion ; in short that the Bible has left the matter doubtful ! ! A 
" Quaker answer" has long been proverbial for an evasion. I 
ask again, Does Amicus admit, or do your standards teach the 
eternal misery of all who die impenitent I 






237 v 

Except the perversion of another text of Scripture there is 
nothing in the remainder of his Essay worth a moment's notice. 
In Tit. ii. 11, 12, the Apostle after exhorting aged men and aged 
women, young men and young women, descends to servants and 
says, " Exhort servants to he ohedient unto their own masters, — 
adorning the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things; for 
the grace of God which hringeth salvation hath appeared to all 
men, teaching them to deny ungodliness and look for the blessed 
hope of the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Je- 
sus Christ &c." As if he had said, "The Gospel makes no ex- 
ception of any class of men, but teaches all classes of men, ser- 
vants as well as masters, poor as well as rich, low as well as 
high to deny ungodliness, &c." — The idea of the heathen "look- 
ing for the coming of their great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," 
of whom the Apostle says they "cannot hear without a preach- 
er," is too extravagant for the faith of any sober man. 

As Amicus seems yet unwilling to leave this subject, and as 
he declines answering the Twenty Arguments I have drawn 
from the Bible, I hope he will be willing to answer the following 
Questions drawn from Facts and from his own Experience, 

1. If it be true, as you assert, that there is in every man, 
heathen as well as christian, a Light which is the " Fountain" 
of the Scriptures, which "is a nearer and surer guide of con- 
science than the Scriptures," I ask, Why have the heathen world 
always been so ignorant of God and divine things ? The Scriptures 
teach us very clearly that there is but One God : how happens it 
that the clearer Light of which you speak has taught every heath- 
en nation that there are thousands of gods? The Romans it is 
said worshipped three thousand, the Greeks thirty thousand, the 
Egyptians a much greater number, and the present Hindoos, ac- 
cording to Gordon Hall, three hundred and thirty millions of 
deities! In China also, they worship an "innumerable multi- 
tude." Now how happens it that this clear and superior light, 
this " guide to all truth," this " Fountain of light*' has not shown 
them their folly ? Or are they right and we wrong, — they in the 
light and we in darkness ? — If so, let us throw away the Bible 
which only misleads us and go back to the light of heathenism ! 

Was it a light superior to the Scriptures that taught the Egyp- 
tians to worship a Bull, a Crocodile, an Ibis, an Onion? — that 
taught the Canaanites to worship Moloch, Belial and Beelze- 
bub ? — that taught the Babylonians to worship the Sun, Moon 
and Stars ? — and the whole heathen world, to " change the glo- 
ry of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corrupti- 
ble man, and birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things 
— to change the truth of God into a lie 9 and worship and serve 



238 * 

the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever ?" — 
Please to show how this is consistent with their having a Light 
superior to the Scriptures — with their having a " nearer and surer 
guide" than the Bible ? Please to show that what the Bible calls 
"the truth of God," is a "lie," and that what we call the "lie" 
of heathenism, is the truth ? 

We wish you to reconcile " Internal Light" with the Bible. 
Internal Light, says the heathen deities, are proper objects of 
worship : the Bible says, 1 Cor. x. 20 : "The things which the 
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils and not to God." 
Now here is a clashing between the Bible and your " superior" 
light! Again; Internal Light says the heathen know God and 
call upon his name, and worship him as acceptably as ourselves : 
The Bible calls all nations which are without the light of Reve- 
lation "the heathen that have not known Thee, and the king- 
doms that call not on thy name." Psa. lxxix. 6. Please recon- 
cile this great discrepancy. — Again ; if there be in all men a 
light superior to the Scriptures, how came it that the ancient 
Phenicians and Canaanites offered their children to Saturn and 
Moloch ? How comes it that the modern Hindoos, Sumatrians, 
and South Sea Islanders expose and sacrifice their aged parents, 
their sick friends, and infant children — burning their widows, 
and devoting themselves beneath the wheels of Juggernaut ? 
These are parts of their religious system ! Are these signs of su- 
perior light ? — If so, let us turn heathen, for we have none of 
these blessings where the light of the Bible shines. — Say, Friend, 
if the heathen have within them the " Fountain"' of Light, how 
is this consistent with such notions of God and l^iritual things? 

2. If it be true, as you assert, that the Bible is so inferior to 
that internal light which the heathen possess as well as we, how 
happens it that the Bible has sjwead such light wherever it has come? 
If an " Internal Light" superior to the Scriptures was in the 
Gentile world before the Jewish Scriptures were made known, 
how happens it that these same Scriptures have every where 
changed the views and refined the religious notions of men ? In- 
ternal Light (according to your hypothesis) prevailed all over 
the Roman Empire before the Apostles came and diffused the 
light of the Bible. We all know what a change was wrought ,* 
how heathen philosophy, morality and religion (all falsely so 
called) fled like the darkness of the night before the rising sun ! 
Now if the Bible was only a "lesser light," only a "stream" 
from that " Fountain" of light which was already in these na- 
tions, how happened it that the former eclipsed the latter ? Will 
the rising of a star, or of the moon eclipse the noon day Sun ? 
Has the "stream" proved larger than the "Fountain?" Will 



239 

Amicus please to account for it that the "mere words of John 
and Peter and Jude," hare eclipsed and shamed that internal 
light which you are pleased to call " the light of God ?" 

A few centuries after this, the Bible was withdrawn, was hid 
in a dead language, and by prohibitory statutes kept from the 
knowledge of the people. This sun, as it were, set, and " In^ 
ternal Light" re-appeared and shone with uninterrupted beams, 
and what was the consequence ? Why it brought on what some 
people (Quakers too) have called the "dark ages." Please ac- 
count for this. But again, at the Reformation the Bible reap- 
peared, and all Christendom welcomed its light, as those who 
watch for the morning, welcome the rising sun. It has risen, 
and as it climbs its way upwards, the mists and fogs of Idolatry, 
Heresy, and Heathenism, are flying before it; — and if you had 
any "windows" to your houses, it would long ere this have 
made you ashamed of the light of your " candle." 

Why are the lower classes of people in Catholic countries sunk 
so much deeper in ignorance, superstition and spiritual barba- 
rism, than the same class in Protestant lands ? Why are the poor 
inhabitants of Ireland, Italy and Spain so much less enlightened 
and pious, than the poorer classes in Switzerland, Holland, 
Great Britain and the United States ? Is it not because the one 
class have little else than Internal Light, the other have the Bible 
for their Light and Guide ? 

After Amicus has answered these questions drawn from His- 
torical Facts, (and it would be easy to multiply the same to an 
indefinite extent.) I will ask a question drawn from his own Ex- 
perience. 

3. How did you first learn that there is an Universal, Divine, 
Sufficient, Internal Light ? Was it not from the Bible ? or from 
Quaker books ? — Answer me, how do you know you have such 
a Light yourself? " Why I know it; I am perfectly conscious 
when I do right or wrong. I know, for instance, it is wrong to 
swear, to lie, to steal, and right to repent and be a Christian." 
True; but how came you by this light? Can you make your 
solemn affirmation that your light was not derived from the 
Bible, or from some external teaching? "Yes, it is independent 
of all external teaching, the principle was implanted in me im- 
mediately from God." — True, conscience is as much a faculty of 
our nature as reason, but neither of these faculties would be of 
any use without external training. And as Reason is shaped 
and perfected by outward teaching, so is Conscience, — which is 
the true name for your Internal Light. God gave you, as he 
hath given every man, heathen or Christian, a conscience, and 
that conscience has been cultivated by parental teaching, read- 



240 

ing the Scriptures and preaching. The principles of the Moral 
Law, your conscience might have learned from reason and, the 
light of nature, but the truths of the Gospel no man ever learned 
but from the Bible, And I challenge Amicus to prove be lias 
not derived all his knowledge of Christ and the waij of salvation 
from the Book which he so much dishonours. 

Again, I might ask, granting that you have some internal 
light, how do you know that that light is siifficient for salvation ? 
"I have a divine witness to its sufficiency." How do you know 
your witness is divine ? " The Scripture tells me to look for 
such a Light." Ah ! then your light is not sufficient without 
the Scriptures after all ! And what shall the poor heathen do, 
who having not the Bible, do not know that there is such a 
Guide within ? 

The next question is, granting that you have an Internal 
Light, and that it is sufficient for salvation, how do you know 
that this light is given to all ? Have you conversed personally 
with all mankind ? — searched every heart ? How then do you 
know that all have saving light ? " God would not be just in 
denying it to any." How do you know he would not be just ? 
" Why, I have always believed so." But how came you to be- 
lieve so ? "I was taught so, the Scriptures tell me there is 
such a Light in ail." So then, the Scriptures after all are the 
source of your light ! What dishonest dealing is this ! Your 
conscience first borrows all its light from the Bible, and then 
you ungratefully deny your obligations. The Scriptures and 
Conscience are the Sun and Moon of our system ; and the 
Moon might as well boast against the Sun, and say "lam the 
Greater Light," as Conscience or Internal Light boast itself 
against the Scriptures. If Amicus, therefore, will continue 
this subject, I wish him to show one important gospel truth which 
he has not borrowed from the Bible, hit has derived immediately 
from heaven, 

PAUL. 



241 



Seventh-day, id Mo. i(i, 1822 

LETTER XXIV. 



In his last, Paul seems somewhat discomposed, because I 
could not admit his claim to the character of a prophet, and is 
quite angry that the ground of this claim was laid before the 
public. But I think he ought not to be angry with "Amicus ;" 
it was his own imprudence that betrayed him. Some people 
ought to have good memories, a defect in this particular often 
involves them in difficulties. When a man is detected in the 
commission of any evil, it is very natural to blame the detector, 
but it is more reasonable that lie should blame himself — the 
blame ought to fall on the criminal, not on him who brings him 
into public view. 

64 Amicus" acknowledges (i Paul's" kindness in giving him 
the liberty of going to the Printing office for materials to defend 
Ms cause — but as I do not wish to appear in the character of a 
prophet, and as truth needs no fictitious aid, I think it is not very 
probable that I shall avail myself of the kindness of my opponent 
on this occasion. 

Let us now turn our attention to the " main question,' 5 and 
review the arguments adduced against the universality of the 
love and mercy of our beneficent Creator to his rational family. 
The Apostle tells us expressly that " the Grace of God hath 
appeared to all men," Titus ii. 11. This says my opponent is 
M as if he had said the Gospel makes no exception of any class- 
es of men — servants as well as masters — poor as well as rich — - 
low as well as high, to deny ungodliness, ecc." — Very weli 
Paul — this though very far short of the Apostle's meaning, and 
at the same time a perversion of the text may be accounted a 
very liberal concession ! — a concession which goes to overturn 
his antiscriptural scheme, and lays waste his doctrine that the 
Scriptures are the only rule of faitli and practice. " The Gos- 
pel makes no exception of any class of men, servants as well as 
masters." Now if servants as well as masters, then servants in 
China, Birmah, Hindostan, Africa, &c. as well as their masters 
in these countries, have this "grace that brings salvation.*' 
" Poor as well as rich," Very good ! then the poor Chinese — 
the poor Hindoo — the poor Birman — the poor African — as be- 
longing to the poor classes must have this grace ; and as divine 
mercy goes by classes, then the rich classes in these countries 
have this saving grace too ! " Low as well as high !" very com- 
prehensive ! then the low classes as well as the high classes over 
this wide world have this blessed gift ! According to this doc- 
31 



£42 

trine only the middle classes are destitute of saving grace ! — this 
unhappy class then must he the reprobate class predestinated from 
all eternity to "eternal misery." 

My opponent asks, why have the heathens always hcen so ig- 
norant of God and divine things, if it be true that there is in 
every man a divine light? To this question it may be answered, 
that the heathen world have not been so ignorant of God and 
divine things, as " Paul" supposes. Many of them, both before 
and since the Christian era, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, at- 
tained to such a knowledge of God, and to such a purity of life 
as it is impossible to attain by any outward medium, without 
the powerful influence of the same holy Teacher. The time 
would fail me to quote the hundredth part of the testimony that 
might be adduced to prove this position. I will, however, ex- 
hibit a few cases to establish it. Marcus Aurelius Antoni- 
nus said, "It is sufficient for a man to apply himself wholly, 
and confine all his thoughts and cares to the guidance of that 
Spirit, which is within him, and truly and really to serve Him : 
for even the least things ought not to be done without relation to 
the end, and the end of the reasonable creature, is to follow and 
obey Him." — In the perusal of this passage one is forcibly re- 
minded of its similarity to that saying of the Apostle " What- 
soever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Again says Antoni- 
nus, "Without relation to God thou shalt never perform aright 
anything human, nor on the other side any thing divine" — a 
sentiment truly Christian ! — Thai.es, a Grecian taught that 
God was without beginning or end, that he was a searcher of 
hearts, that he saw thoughts as well as actions — for being ask- 
ed of one, if he could sin and hide it from God, he answered No, 
how can I, when he that thinks evil cannot ? How consonant to 
the Scripture doctrine of God is this ? " He searcheth the hearts 
and trieth the reins." — Pythagoras taught that "there is noth- 
ing so fearful as an evil conscience ; that men should believe 
in God, that he is — that he overlooketh them, and neglecteth 
them not— that there is no being nor place without God." It 
must, I think be evident that Pythagoras taught Scripture truths 
in these sentences, truths of the most important nature— the 
horrors of sin — the providence of God and his Omnipresence! 
He taught also that men should not in Courts of Judicature at- 
test any thing by an oath or appeal to God, but use themselves 
so to speak as that they may be believed without an oath ! How 
consistent this with the doctrine of Christ, " Swear not at all," 
and with that of the Apostle James, "Above all things my 
brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, 
neither by any other oath." Solon taught to " observe honesty 



243 

in conversation more strictly than an oath — to fly pleasure for 
it brings sorrow — to meditate on serious things, and in all things 
to take counsel of God." Chiion taught that " good men were 
different from bad ones, in that their hopes were firm and assur- 
ed that God was the great touchstone or rule of action." Bias 
said " Make profession of God every where, and impute the 
good that tbou doest, not to thyself, but to the power of God." 
Anaxagoras taught the doctrine of " One Eternal God, deny- 
ing the divinity of the Sun, Moon and Stars, saying, God was 
infinite — not confined to place— the eternal, efficient cause of all 
things — the Divine Mind and Understanding." Heraclitus 
had great and clear apprehensions of the nature and power of 
God, maintaining his divinity against the Idolatry of the times; 
<f God," says he, " is not made with hands — the whole world 
adorned with his creatures is his mansion-his works bear witness 
of him. The soul is something divine, if my body be overpressed 
with disease, it must descend to the place ordained — however 
my soul shall not descend, but being a thing immortal it shall 
ascend on high where an heavenly mansion shall receive me." 

From the foregoing authorities it clearly appears that the 
heathens have not been so ignorant of God and divhfe things, as 
Paul would make us believe — these were the men, and I could 
easily quote examples of this kind from other heathen nations, 
" who having not the law, became a law unto themselves, shew- 
ing forth the work of the law written in the heart," and who 
shall be numbered among those of every nation, kindred, tongue 
and people, whom John the Divine, in the vision of light saw 
even the great multitude, which no man could number, who stood 
before the throne and before the Lamb, with white robes and 
palms in their hands, crying, " Salvation to our God, which 
sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb." Rev. vii. 10. 

" How happens it," says Paul, " that the Bible has spread 
such light wherever it has come !" This question though not 
couched in the most appropriate terms, may, as to the substance 
of it, be easily answered. The reason then that light has been 
more distinctly felt and improved where the Bible has come, is 
this, that the Bible directs and every where presses its reader 
to attend to that divine " Internal Light" that enlightens every 
man that cometh into the world." — This Divine Light shines 
in the souls of all men — the only cause why some men are more 
benefitted by its beams than others, is this — that some men pay 
more attention to it than others — " Christ is the true light that 
lighteneth every man that cometh into the world'* — but what 
signifies it how much light we have, if we do not regard it? 
Now the Scriptures teach us to "walk in the light whilst we 



244 

have the fight, that we may become the children of the light," 
consequently, where the Scriptures have been received as the 
language of inspired penmen, those who thus receive them turn 
their attention to this divine internal and blessed light of the 
soul, and therefore they become divinely enlightened, or in 
Scripture language they become i* children of the light." 

66 When the Bible was withdrawn, the times succeeded that 
were called the dark ages — and so called by some of the Quakers 
too" — very true — But not because the Bible was withdrawn, at 
least not solely on this account — It was principally because a cor- 
rupt mercenary priesthood had persuaded the people to turn their 
eyes from Christ the light of the world, to them, the dark min- 
isters of Antichrist ! thus the world became darkened — and thus 
it will ever be whilst like causes produce like effects — a merce- 
nary priesthood is the bane of Christianity — a reproach to the 
Gospel — it ever has and ever will injure the most glorious cause 
that ever was espoused by the true ministers of Christ — This 
will fully account for the fact, that " the lower classes in Catho- 
lic countries are sunk so much deeper in ignorance, superstition 
and spiritual barbarism, than the same classes in Protestant coun- 
tries." In Protestant countries there are more of that kind of 
ministers, who having "freely received" are concerned " freely 
to give," who are bound to direct their hearers to Christ the di- 
vine and internal light of all God's rational family, tha T i there 
are in Catholic countries, where the dark hireling has so much 
influence that he excludes the free ministry of the Gospel of 
Christ/' 

" Paul" thinks it a powerful argument against the doctrine 
of the Apostle, that all men have not profited by "the grace of 
God that bringeth salvation and which hath appeared unto all 
men" — It is, however, easy to see that this argument is equally 
forcible against the Scriptures ! Have all men that have heard or 
read the Scriptures profited by them? " The heathens are great 
Idolaters," true, they are. But who are greater Idolaters than 
professed Christians? What is Idolatry ? Is it only the bowing 
down to sticks and stones ? Idolatry is the loving any thing more 
than God ! Who then are greater Idolaters than those who read 
the Scriptures? How many Idols are worshipped in Christian 
countries? They are innumerable! We need not reproach the 
South Sea Islanders, the Chinese, the Birmans or the Hindoos ! 
If any man love any thing more than God, that thing is as much 
his Idol as Juggernaut is an Idol to the native of Hindostan ! — 
And what people on earth sacrifices as many human victims to 
their Idols as the nominal professors of Christianity ? The peo- 
ple of the United States offer up 3000 or 4000 victims every year 



24j 

to the Idol of Spirituous Liquors ! ! ! The Christian world, as it 
is called, within the last thirty years, has sacrificed several mil- 
lions of men to the Idol of War ! ! ! And this detestable Idol, far 
worse than Juggernaut, is at this time worshipped by professed 
friends of the Scriptures ! ! ! Its assistance is openly implored in 
the public Newspapers as a means of spreading the Bible! ! ! 

I think we need not go far from home to find " the dark places 
of the Earth." — It is doubtful even at this day, whether there is 
a nation on the face of the globe, who act more inconsistently 
with the doctrine of the Bible, or with the clear manifestations 
of divine light, than what is called Christendom .' 

Poor blind infatuated man ! with a beam in his Eye — and his 
heart elated with all the self-righteousness of a genuine Pharisee 
— puts on his broad phylacteries, makes long prayers — pronoun- 
ces the sentence of blessedness on himself — thanks God he is not 
as other men are — and after a great display of pompous religi- 
ous ceremonies thinks he has done God great service ! ! ! and 
then to cap the climax of absurdity, sends millions of his fellow 
creatures to eternal perdition, because they have not sinned 
against all the mercy that God has afforded for his improvement 
and salvation!!! — "Thou hypocrite first cast the beam out of 
thine own eye and then through the blessed means of that divine 
internal light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the 
world*' — thou shalt see clearly to take the mote out of thy broth- 
er's eve. 

AMICUS; 



246 

Saturday , March 23, \$%z. 

LETTER XXIII. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT. 

" For after thai, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew 
not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save 
them that believe." 1 Cor. i. 21. 

It appears from this passage, that one design of Divine Pro- 
vidence in leaving the Gentile world so long without the Scrip- 
tures, was to show that no other light would he sufficient for 
man's Salvation. After four thousand years experiment, when 
it was clearly seen that neither Reason, Conscience nor Tradi- 
tion, nor all combined could turn men from idolatry and sin, and 
thus save them from perdition, it pleased God to send forth the 
Jewish Scriptures, and by these to effect what all other light had 
failed to accomplish. Wherever the Bible has come — open and 
gross Idolatry is unknown, one only God is acknowledged, one 
Saviour adored, one Way of Salvation adopted. Wherever the 
Bible is not known all the darkness of idolatry, superstition and 
open and abominable immoralities prevail. Go through the 
heathen world, and you will not find one man who worships Je- 
hovah, one who is not either an idolater or an atheist. You will 
not find a single preacher of Jesus Christ, nor a single church 
erected to the Triune God. Yet Amicus seems to think it " very 
doubtful" whether " what is called Christendom" furnishes more 
consistent people than heathen lands. He contends, in the very 
face of the passage which stands at the head of this letter that 
the world by their wisdom and philosophy did know God, even 
before the "foolishness of preaching" was heard, or the Scrip- 
tures made known ! And he particularly quotes Thales, Solon, 
Chilo, Bias, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, and Marcus Aurelius as 
persons who had acquired and expressed some rational notions 
of the Unity, Omnipresence and Omniscience of the Deity — no- 
tions which he thinks they could not have acquired without " In- 
ternal Light," or an immediate revelation from heaven. 

In answer, I would Remark 

1. Reason or the Light of nature may teach man the Existence, 
the Unity and many of the Perfections of God. As the Apostle 
says " The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being un- 
derstood by the things that are made, (or works of Creation,) even 
his eternal Power and Godhead." Rom. i. 20. Now r had these 
philosophers any more knowledge of God than they could have 
derived from Reason? 

2. The faculty of Conscience is as universal as the faculty of 



247 

Reason, and (like Reason) operates in all in proportion to its 
cultivation. It is the substance of the Moral or Adatnic Law 
engraven on the heart. Thus the Apostle says M The Gentiles 
have the work (or substance, or import) of the law written on 
their hearts, their consciences in the mean time accusing or else 
excusing them." Rom. ii. 15. Now had these Philosophers any 
deeper sense of right or wrong than what they might have de- 
rived from this natural Monitor ? Neither Reason nor Consci- 
ence, however, can teach one gospel truth, or give the least hint 
of a way of salvation. 

3. Many of the early Revelations made to Adam, Enoch, Noah, 
&c. were handed down by Tradition, — and in after ages, by the 
frequent dispersion of the Jews, some knowledge of the Bible 
must have been diffused in different countries. Now r , before 
Amicus attributes the doctrines of these heathen Philosophers to 
" Internal Light," or an immediate revelation from the Spirit of 
God, he is bound to prove that the whole of their knowledge could 
not have been derived from one or the other of the above sources. 

4. But after all what did these wisest of the heathen know? 
Thales, Bias, Chilo, and Solon were four of the "Seven wise men 
of Greece," and may therefore be supposed to know as much, 
at least, as any of their cotemporaries. But what did they 
know ? Put all their wisdom together and it amounts to less 
than mere reason, without the Scriptures, can now demonstrate. 
A Christian school boy of ten years old, with the Bible in his 
hand, could teach them more of God and spiritual truth in one 
short hour than they acquired in all their lives ! Whatever 
they might say of one Supreme Being, they had no honorable 
ideas of him. Their Jupiter was a limited Monarch, shackled 
by a parliament of other gods, who often hindered and defeated 
his purposes ! Their Tartarus and Elysium were corruptions 
of tradition, and were prepared not for all mankind, but only 
for the greatly wicked or eminently good. Whatever they thought, 
they practised Polytheism, and taught it in their writings. They 
sent people to the Oracles to learn their duty, and laid it down as 
a fundamental principle, that all should conform to the religion of 
their country 1 They taught that lying was lawful w hen it was 
profitable, and w r ere generally unclean and immoral in their 
lives. 

Pythagoras w orshipped the gods every morning at an early 
hour, — believed in the metempsychosis or transmigration of 
souls ; and lying, said he remembered to have inhabited already 
the bodies of four different persons ! Jinaxagoras held that god 
was the " soul of the world." of course that the world was god, 
and every part of it might be w orshipped, — and thus encouraged 



£48 

polytheism. Plato taught that the best guide was the Delphian 
Oracles, and in his " Utopia" or model of a perfect Republic, 
he recommended community of wives and the regular worship of 
their old idols ! — Socrates, with his dying breath, ordered to sa- 
crifice a cock to Esculapius, the god of physic ! And not a 
Philosopher can be named but showed the childishness of his 
notions on religion. Yet these are the enlightened men whom 
Amicus places on a par in point of spiritual information with 
the people of this Christian land ! 

But the character on whom he seems principally to rely is 
Marcus Jlurelius, Emperor of Rome. He lived one hundred 
and sixty years after Christ, and when Christianity had made 
considerable progress in his Empire. He was a great philoso- 
pher, and in a popular sense, an excellent man. But his « Me- 
ditations" show that he was only or hardly a sober deist. He 
held that God was the " soul of the world," and therefore that 
every part of the world was god, and he hismelf a part of God. 
He considered his mind or soul a part of the Divine essence, 
and therefore speaks of having God within him. Thus he prays 
to the world, " Whatsoever is agreeable to thee. O comely 
World, is agreeable to me." And again, " Every thing is ac- 
ceptable fruit to me which thy seasons, O nature, bear. From 
thee are all things, in thee all tilings subsist, and +o thee all 
things return." He generally spoke in the polytheistic strain, 
swore by " Jupiter and all the gods," and was remarkably pro- 
fuse in his sacrifices at their shrines. Was this worshipping 
Jehovah ! Confession of sin made no part of his religion — any 
more than it does of yours I He gives not the least hint of a 
future Judgment, or of the punishment of the wicked, and speaks 
doubtfully of the Immortality of the soul !!! How enlightened he 
must have been ! What remarkable revelations he must have 
had ! How dearly he loved Christianity all historians tell. 
Milner says he was " an implacable persecutor of Christians 
for nineteen years," — that is till death cut short his persecuting 
arm. Mosheim says, " If we except that of Nero, there was 
no reign under which the Christians were more injuriously and 
cruelly treated than under that of the wise and virtuous Marcus 
Aurelius." Besides thousands of others, the venerable Poly- 
carp and Justin Martyr fell a sacrifice to his cruelty. Yet Ami- 
cus is right in supposing him a good Quaker. He had no sense 
of sin — was proud and self complacent — an adversary to the 
gospel, said nothing of future punishment, and thought his own 
wicked heart was a divine light and a better guide than the 
Bible ! 

And now, I wish to ask a few more Questions. If an Inter- 



249 

nal Revelation superior to the External Revelation of the 
Scriptures, he given to all mankind, how happens it; 

1. That the heathen are so ignorant of the doctrine of the 
Trinity ? The BiJ)Ie speaks of " Three that bear record in 
heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, which three 
are one." 1 John v. 7. Now how happens it that their reve- 
lation never told them of this important truth ? 2. Jf their Re- 
velation be superior to ours, how happens it that not one of them 
says a word of Jesus Christ, of a Messiah — of a Mediator — or 
of a Saviour for sinners ? Is this a subject of no importance 2 
Why then has not their revelation taught it to them ? Let Ami- 
cus answer it. 

S. If they have a Light superior to the Bible, how happens it 
that not one of their spiritual guides ever taught them to rest 
their hope of pardon on the Atonement of a Mediatorial substi- 
tute ? If they had so much light, why did none of them speak 
of such an atonement? 4. If they have so much light, how 
happens it that none of them teach the total depravity of the 
human heart — the liability of sinners to eternal wrath, and 
the necessity of regeneration ? These truths are essential to 
salvation. Now can Amicus quote one instance of a man ac- 
quiring a knowledge of these truths by Internal without Exter- 
nal revelation — Let him try. 

5. Had the Light he supposes to have been given to the hea- 
then efficacy equal to the Bible to purify the heart and life ? He 
will hardly deny there are some saints in Christendom, some 
who live a life of Penitence, Faith and Holiness. Now will he 
produce one instance — only one — of a person destitute of exter- 
nal revelation who showed by his life that his heart was holy and 
that he had felt the power of the gospel ? Can you produce one 
of all these enlightened philosophers who was not either an Idola- 
ter — or a Persecutor, or an advocate for Lying — for fornication, 
— for community of wives — for the murder of poor and un- 
healthy children — or who was not a Sodomite ? The Internal 
Light, therefore, of the heathen (if they had any) had no effi- 
cacy to purify their lives. But Amicus acknowledges that the 
Bible has efficacy, for he says, " light has been more distinctly 
felt, and improved where the Bible has come, because the Bible 
every where directs its reader to attend to internal light.*' 
Reader, this is an important acknowledgment, and upon it 
I would found a few more Questions, to which I hope Amicus 
will give an honest answer. 1. Is not this in effect admitting 
that without the Scriptures, Internal Light is an inefficacious 
and insufficient guide ? Without the Bible it is not " distinctly 



£50 

felt and improved. " 2. Is not this lighting a candle to discover 
the Sun ? — sending the Bible to lead to a Greater Light! If 
the Sun of Righteousness was previously shining on the Gentile 
world, how could the rising of a lesser light increase our spiri- 
tual vision ? Now it appears to me that as the Bible, wherever 
it has come, has turned darkness into day, that this is a sufficient 
proof of its being superior to all other lights. 

3. Even on your own principles that Internal Light is more 
distinctly felt and improved where the Bible comes, is not the 
diffusion of the Bible most important ? If a man had a " trea- 
sure hid in a field," or a " light under a bushel" which he did 
not, could not know of till some one told him, would it be kind 
in any one to withhold the information ? Now, granting that 
the heathen have within them all the light which you suppose, if 
that light has no efficacy to purify their hearts and lives,, and if 
it can never be (i distinctly felt and improved or attended to" 
till the Bible is put into their hands, — why do you oppose the cir- 
culation of the Scriptures — condemn Bible Societies — exalt and ex- 
tol the light of the heathen — and underrate the light of the Bible I 

And now, my friends, while I condemn your errors, I love 
your persons, sincerely mourn for your delusion, and long and 
pray for your salvation. 

PAUL. 



251 

Seventh-day i id. Mo. 30, i£i2. 

LETTER XXV. 

From the many clear Scripture texts which Amicus has ad- 
vanced to demonstrate that God's love to mankind is universal, 
not confined to any nation, tongue or people, hut that he hath 
furnished all men with adequate means of Salvation — texts too 
clear to be misunderstood, too plain to need any illustration — I 
think it appears* that the present is not so much a controversy 
between " Paul" and " Amicus" as a contest between Paul 
the Presbyterian, and Paul the Apostle — between Paul, a wri- 
ter in a paper called " the Christian Repository," and the Wri- 
ters of a Book called " the Bible" — between the Religion of 
apostatized Christendom, and the Religion of the Patriarchs, 
Prophets, our Lord and the primitive church ! 

In order to elucidate this position, I will in a concise manner, 
review the sentiments of these opposing parties ! — I will first 
state the doctrine of Paul the Presbyterian, and then quote a 
few passages from Paul the Apostle and other Scripture Writers 
by way of contrast ! 

My Opponent holds the doctrine, that " the Scriptures are 
the supreme and only standard of faith and practice," the es- 
sential means of salvation — that without them mankind are left 
in irremediable darkness and sin, and consequently are doomed 
to perish by hundreds of millions — to go away into everlasting 
misery, into " eternal damnation" — And thus to perish be- 
cause they could not have what God was not pleased to give 
them — to perish, to be tormented, not by any fault of their own, 
but because God withheld from them the only means of salva- 
tion !!! — And thus he makes the blessed Creator, of whom it is 
said " The Lord is good to all, his tender mercies are over all 
his works," Psalm cxlv. 9. a more cruel, a more unjust, a more 
tyrannical Being than was ever conceived of by the most gloomy 
and perverted imagination. 

The first Scripture Writer I shall quote, is the prophet Eze- 
kiel, xxxiii. 11. 20. This passage is very appropriate, as the 
prophet seems to be addressing just such notionists as my oppo- 
nent, who say, " The ways of the Lord are not equal !" " As 
I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of 
the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live !" 
" Paul's doctrine is the very reverse of this ! It is that God 
has great pleasure in the death of the wicked ; and not only in 
the death of the wicked, but, in the death and damnation of mil- 



lions, who never had a knowledge of his will ! who never had 
the divine law, and consequently, never transgressed it--*' for 
where there is no law there is no transgression,'' Rom. iv. 15. 
It is that God has predestinated myriads of his rational creatures 
to hell, hefore they were born, and after he gave them existence, 
wilfully withheld from them the only means of salvation ; 
means which he could easily have afforded them, but withheld it 
that they might live in darkness and perish without remedy !!! 

" The Scriptures," says my opponent, " are the supreme and 
only rule" or law — Now, if' this be true, there can be no sin 
where there is no Scripture ! " For sin," says the Apostle, " is 
the transgression of the law" — and "where there is no law, 
there is no transgression," consequently God must delight in the 
eternal torments of his creatures, not because they transgress- 
ed his will or law, but because they had no law to transgress !!! 

The Apostle Paul who was particularly commissioned to 
preach to the heathen had enlarged views of the efficacy and ex- 
tent of God's love~and mercy ! M I exhort" says lie, " that sup- 
plication, prayers and giving of thanks be made for all men, 
for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Sa- 
viour, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth," — " for there is one God, and one Me- 
diator between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave 
himself a ransom for all.' 9 1 Tim. ii. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. In this 
text the efficacy and extent of the great means of salvation are 
expressly declared ! " He will have all men to be saved"- — 
" Christ gave himself a ransom for all." This is in perfect 
consonance with the sentiments of the Apostle Peter, who, in 
one short passage doubly proves our proposition ! First, nega- 
tively, " The Lord is not willing that any should perish :" — 
then affirmatively, "but that a/T should come to repentance," 
2 Peter iii. 9. This passage again is in full accordance with 
the testimony of the eminently enlightened Apostle John, where 
he says, " If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, 
Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the propitiation far our sins, 
and not for onrs only, but also for the sins of the whole world," 
1 John ii. 1, 2. This divinely illuminated Apostle seems to 
have had in view the cavilling objections of such men as my 
opponent, who appropriate all God's mercy to such as they sup- 
pose themselves, " the believers"—" the elect" — " the saints" 
For here the Apostle expressly says, " not for our sins only" — 
not only a propitiation for those who have been favoured with 
the external and internal evidence of the truth, but also " for the 
sins of the whole world" — for the sins of those who never heard 



253 

of the Messiah — Because, as sin is a universal disease, so is the 
remedy. " If amj man sin, we have an advocate" — Jew and 
Gentile, Scythian and Barbarian, Chinese and Mahometan, 
Hindoo and Birman, African and American Indian — all *-« have 
an advocate" — all through the internal " manifestations of the 
Spirit, which is given to every man to profit withal," have the 
means of reconciliation and redemption — all have the medicine, 
which is as extensive as the disease ; and consequently, evenj 
man who is willing to accept the proffered boon may become an 
heir of Salvation. 

" Paul" in his last address to us, quotes the Apostle to the 
Corinthians, where he says, " After that, in the wisdom of God, 
the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the fool- 
ishness of preaching to save them that believe ;" and tells us 
that " it appears by this passage, that one design of Providence 
in leaving the Gentiles so long without the Scriptures, was to 
shew that no other light would be sufficient for man's salvation." 
One design of Providence, then, in this experiment, by which, 
according to my opponent, innumerable immortal souls were 
thrown into hell, was to show us, to convince us 9 poor moths, that 
the Scriptures arc necessary to salvation ; and after all, this 
awful experiment has failed to produce the intended effect ; and 
thus he makes a merciful God to throw millions of never dying 
creatures into a gulf of interminable misery, in order to convince 
us of what cannot be true, unless the plainest scripture testimo- 
nies arc absolutely false. Thus the awful gulf of endless tor- 
ment swallowed millions of helpless victims for four thousand 
years, in order to produce a conviction derogatory to every 
principle of Justice and mercy — in order to shew us that the 
most excellent, the most amiable, the most glorious Being, is a 
cruel tyrant, every way worthy of execration, instead of adora- 
tion and praise. If any of *? Paul's" readers can digest such 
doctrine as this, I think we need not envy them their taste or 
understanding. 

But who lias ever said, that "the world by its wisdom can 
know God ?" I am sure Amicus has never advanced such a sen- 
timent ! No man, whether he have the Scriptures or not, can 
ever know God but by one medium. The Scriptures cannot 
give us this knowledge ! They may give us notions but not know- 
ledge ! It always was, and always will he, a truth that " no man 
knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will 
reveal him." Matt. xi. £7. Without " immediate revelation," 
which my opponent says has ceased, there can be no true know- 
ledge of God ! ! ! And without this we may talk and reason and 



254 

dispute about the nature of the Deity till death shall seize us, 
and yet be as ignorant of God as the most ignorant savage ! I 
quoted Thales, Solon, Chilon, Bias and other heathens, to shew, 
not that they had attained to the true and saving knowledge of 
God by their own wisdom, but with the avowed intention of prov- 
ing that " a measure or manifestation of the Spirit," according 
to the Apostle's doctrine " hath appeared unto all men," and that 
by this Holy Spirit they had attained to such a knowledge of the 
divine nature, and of its operation and effects, both on them- 
selves and in the works of nature generally, as no Book, no Writ- 
ing, no Preacher, can possibly give — Books and preachers can 
only convince the natural understanding — it is the supreme and 
exclusive prerogative of the Holy Spirit — the Spirit that was in 
Christ, to impress the soul with the true and saving knowledge 
of God, " No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to 
whom the Son will reveal him." 

This eternal truth is evinced in the most undeniable manner 
by our Saviour himself, where he says, John xvii. 3. " And this 
is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ whom thou has sent ;" By this text it appears that 
the true knowledge, the internal experimental knowledge of God, 
and life eternal, are inseperably connected ; but such a know- 
ledge of God as can be obtained by reading the Scriptures, may 
subsist in the most vicious and depraved of the human family ; 
in the glutton, the drunkard, the robber and the murderer. 

But my opponent tells us that the true and sublime knowledge 
of God which the heathens obtained was the discovery of Rea- 
son, or the Light of Nature or Conscience — Now if he mean by 
Reason, the Light of Nature or Conscience, any thing that belongs 
to man as a natural animal — this is absurd, because it is to 
make the effect greater than the cause — it is to give the natural 
faculties of man a power to unveil divine mysteries — to pene- 
trate heaven, and comprehend the things of God without divine 
assistance — which is impossible! How much more rational is 
the view of the great Apostle on this subject ! Let us hear him : 
" For what man knoweth the things of a man, but by the Spirit 
of a man that is in him ? Even so, the things of God no man 
knoweth, but by the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. ii. 11. Here we see 
every thing in divine order, " the things of a man," every thing 
connected with his animal or rational nature, is within the pow- 
er and comprehension of M the Spirit of a man that is in him," is 
discernible by Reason, the Light of Nature, Conscience: but Vtke 
things of God no man knoweth," nor can possibly know but by 
(i the Spirit of God."-— Any other knowledge of God is mere in> 



255 

tion — a shadowy false idea floating in the brain — as far removed 
from the reality, as is any notion of the nature of Light, enter- 
tained by a man, who never had any eyes ; as foreign from the 
truth as the idea of the blind man, who, we are told, was once 
delighted with a supposed discovery of the appearance of purple; 
and who, on being asked what it was like, replied, that it was 
exactly like the sound of a trumpet ! 

u Paul" tells us, that before Amicus attributes the doctrines 
of these heathen Philosophers to "Internal Light," he is bound 
to prove that the whole of their knowledge was not derived from 
tradition, &c." This is the first time that I ever heard that 
any man was bound to prove a negative III I think it would be 
more in order for him to prove the affirmative. But this he ne- 
ver can do — many of them lived before the greater part of the 
Scriptures were written, and they evince that kind of experimen- 
tal knowledge of God, that no tradition can possibly convey. 

My opponent thinks that because these Philosophers and pious 
heathen, did not in all things act consistently with the light so 
conspicuously displayed in their doctrine, that therefore, they 
had no divine light. — Now if this argument be good, we can 
easily prove that the most eminent Christians never had the 
Scriptures III Luther, acknowledged the real presence in the 
Eucharist ! — Calvin signed a death warrant to burn Servetus ! 
Cranmer proclaimed the murderous Henry VII I. as supreme 
Head of the Church ! The Presbyterians in New England, 
maimed, whipped and hanged the dissenters from their creed ! 
And yet, will any one say that these never had the Scriptures ? 
Or will he say that the Gospel sanctions these things ? Interest, 
passion, and prejudice, produce great inconsistencies of conduct, 
but it will not thence follow that those who do wrong act con- 
sistently with their principles. 

The Scriptures teach us that those who have the Light may 
not profit by it — " He that doeth evil hateth the Light, neither 
cometh to the Light lest his deeds should be reproved." John 
iii. 20. This is the great reason why so much darkness pre- 
vails over the world ! This is the reason why boasted Chris- 
tendom with all its professions of regard for the Bible falls be- 
hind the very heathen in the essentials of true faith. Man is 
born into the world a poor dark creature — ignorant of God and 
divine things ! Gospel light, like the light of the natural day, is 
at first a very gentle radiance. It is compared by our Lord to 
" a grain of mustard seed" — to " a little leaven" — it requires a 
disposition to cultivate it — to suffer it to operate. Hence the 
propriety of the Apostolic exhortation, " Quench not the Spi- 



256 

lit;" man may resist it — magnate it — may turn away from it — 
may shut his eyes so that he may lose the henefit of its beams ! 
and therefore our Saviour declares " if the Light that is in thee 
become darkness, how great is that darkness." Like the seed that 
the Sower went forth to sow — it has to contend with briars and 
thorns — with rocky ground — with the fowls of the air — and with 
the beasts of the earth. If under all these unfavourable circum- 
stances, it has made no very considerable appearance, we ought 
not to marvel ! The world is in array against it. It discovers 
its pride, its sensuality, its selfishness. The pretended follow- 
ers of Christ are against it — it discovers their hypocrisy — the 
professed ministers of Christ are against it. It manifests their 
ambition, their venality. They decry it, they vilify it, they 
give it opprobious names, and do all in their power to turn the 
attention of their hearers from it to them! Nevertheless, in spite 
of all opposition, it will prevail! It is the "stone that was cut 
out of the mountain without hands," and will finally " fill the 
whole earth." Its progress, though slow, is certain ! Mystery 
Babylon must fall! and her merchants who have been made 
rich by their spiritual traffick, will yet have to say, whilst they 
weep over the smoaking ruin, " Babylon is fallen, is fallen !?* 

AMICUS, 



25? 



EDITORIAL NOTES. 



{As the foregoing No. of "Amicus" closes the first vol. of the Re- 
pository, and as through some miscalculation of the printer, 
there would otherwise be two blank pages, we have taken the li- 
berty to add the following notes, from the Repository of Jan. 23, 
and July 7, 1821.] 

[We insert" John" (see page 35) to show that we are favour- 
able to free discussion. At the same time we cannot refrain 
from dissenting from the opinion which he seems to express, in 
respect to the holy scriptures. We believe that every thing 
which in the least degree tends to weaken our belief in their di- 
vine origin, and of course their being the infallible rule of life, 
goes to sap the true foundation of our faith ; and lea\es us like 
the frighted mariner in tlie storm, without either sail or helm. 
To the written law and Testimony we cling. Peter, contrast- 
ing the Scriptures with ocular demonstration, gives the prefer- 
ence to the former, and says, although we have ocular demon- 
stration of the divinity of Christ, — " We have also a more sure 
word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, &c." 
— and John the Apostle says,P(under the Spirit of inspiration, no 
doubt) " If any man shall add to or take from the words of the 
book of this Prophecy, &c." If the Scriptures are not the rule 
of life, the infallible guide, why so severe a sentence against 
those who pervert them ! Christians, in their present imperfect 
state, will and do have different views of the same portion of 
Scripture; but when the time comes, that none need say to his 
brother " know ye the Lord," then they will be enabled to dis- 
cover the beauty of many passages, which now appear to be en- 
veloped in mystery.] 

EDITOR. 



We have no desire to enter the field of controversy with 
" John," but must in self-defence add a word or two. " John" 
(in his last No. see page 34,) says, " It is admitted that he (the 
Apostle John,) wrote his Gospel and Epistles after he wrote the 
book of Revelations. Scott, Doddridge, Henry, Gill, Brown, 
and most, if not all the leading commentators testify to the 
33 



258 

contrary : all considering it as the last written book of the 
Bible; and chap. xxii. 18, 19, as applicable primary to the last 
book, but generally to the whole of Scripture. It is of similar 
import with Deut. iv. 2. " Ye shall not add unto the word 
which I commanded you, neither shall ye diminish ought from 
it, &c." and Prov. xxx. 5, 6. " Every word of God is pure — 
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be 
found a liar." Those passages have a two-fold meaning ; they 
teach us the infallibility of the Scriptures ; and also that the 
" word of God" does not mean Christ, but is properly applied 
to the Bible. See also Mark vii. 13. " Making the word of 
God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have deliv- 
ered : and many such like things do ye." — So also Luke iv. 4, 
— v. 1. — xi. 28. John viii. 47. Acts iv. 31. — vi. 2. — xiii. 44, 
46. 2 Cor. ii. 17. — iv. 2. Heb. xiii. 17. and a hundred others, 
showing the word to mean the Scripture. 

In reply to " John's" remark on 2 Peter, 1.9, we give the 
words of ScotU in his comments on that passage — The " word 
of prophecy" is called " more sure," because it is a more gen- 
eral and permanent proof, than the vision on the mount, which, 
though the strongest evidence to them, is comparatively little evi- 
dence to others. 

In conclusion, we are sorry to say that " John's" explan- 
ations do not go to remove the impressions first made, that he 
too liglitly esteems the written word. 

jBoitor. 



259 

Saturday y £pr\\ 13, i8J2« 

LETTER XXIV. 

ON INTERNAL LIGHT., 

* > 7/ow s/inW //tet/ believe in him of whom they have not heard? 
and how shall they hear without a preacher . Rom. x. 14. 

The Apostle in the above passage declares his ignorance of 
any way in which the heathen can come to the knowledge of 
Christ without external revelation. And therefore, in the next 
verse, he says " How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet 
of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings 
of good things!" Amicus, it seems, has more wisdom 9 and as- 
serts that " Solon, Bias and other heathen attained such a 
knowledge of God as no Book, no writing, no Preacher could 
possibly give !" 

To lighten his burden as much as possible, instead of com- 
pelling him to prove that every child of Adam has a sufficient 
revelation without the Bible, I will give up the argument if he 
will prove his doctrine true of a single individual of our race. 
If he will produce a single instance (except the Prophets and 
Apostles who had extraordinary inspiration) of a man who «' be- 
lieved" in Christ without having first " heard" of Christ in an 
external way, I will confess the Apostle mistaken and myself 
disappointed. And as he knows more of himself than any body 
else, I will risk the whole on his proving that he would have ev- 
er had even a glimpse of the Gospel and the way of salvation 
without the Bible and external teaching. To assist him in his 
inquiry, I ask 

1. How do you know that a just God will ever pardon the 
transgressor of his law . ? Or that He has contrived a way of sal- 
vation for sinners. The Apostle says, ". life and immortality 
are brought to light through the gospel, of which I am appointed 
a preacher and a teacher of the Gentiles. Therefore hold fast 
the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me." 2 Tim. 
11. 13. Now quere, did you not obtain your knowledge from 
the Apostle or from some other human teacher? 

2. How did you learn that Jesus of Nazareth w r as the only 
Saviour ? by immediate revelation ? or hy some Book or Teach- 
er ? " Faith" in him generally " comes by hearing," ana hear- 
ing by some preacher. 

3. How did you learn that Repentance of sin and Faith in Je- 
sus Christ were the terms of salvation ? Strange that none of 
your inspired heathen should have given the least hint of jaith 



260 

in Christ being a duty. The Athenians who were the most reli- 
gious of all the Greeks, and among whom many of your *' pious" 
philosophers 'lived, laughed at "Jesus and the Resurrection \" 
Acts xvii. 18. Now how came you to look on Jesus Christ in a 
different light? 

4. How did you learn that no righteousness of your own could 
justify you at the bar of God, and that you must be saved, if 
saved at all, through the righteousness of a crucified Mediator ? 
The '* cross of Christ" or salvation through his death, was "to 
the Greeks foolishness ;" how came it to appear "wisdom" to 

you ? 

5. How did you learn the doctrine of the Trinity, the Divini- 
ty of Jesus, the necessity of Regeneration, salvation by Faith, 
and the everlasting Punishment of the wicked ? If you have not 
learned these things you are ignorant of the elements of Christi- 
anity ; if you have learned them, / challenge you to prove you 
have not learned them directly or indirectly from the despised Bible, 

To the doctrine, that where there is no external, there is no 
internal revelation, he objects, 

1. Obj. — " God declares himself unwilling that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance, and that "he has 
no pleasure in the death of the wicked ;" hence it follows, he 
gives internal revelation to all." How very logical such rea- 
soning! Might I not just as well say, " therefore he gives exter~ 
nal revelation or the Bible to all" — or therefore, he gives all the 
means of grace to all — therefore, he saves all ? These inferences 
would be as just and logical as the one he has drawn. The 
above texts prove universal piety and universal salvation, as 
much as they do universal light and grace. These texts prove 
nothing as to the actual application of salvation, or they would 
prove Universalism. They only assert the fulness of the provi- 
sion which God has made, and show that it is not His fault, but 
the fault of his creatures, if any are not saved. God is unwill- 
ing (in the same sense) that there should be any sin in the world 
— that there should be any swearers, drunkards, heretics or im- 
penitent infidels on earth, for he has forbidden all these things. 
But does this prove there is no sin, no sinners in the world ! Just 
as much as the above texts prove that he gives a revelation to all 
mankind. There is a sense in which God wills the salvation of 
the heathen, — he has provided a salvation exactly suited to their 
wants — he has commanded his people to send this gospel to every 
creature — and promised to save all of any nation, who will re- 
pent and believe. This is enough to acquit Him, and justify 
the declaration in these texts. But there is so much Quakerism 



261 

in the world, such an obstinate notion that the heathen already 
have saving light, that the Divine commands arc not obeyed, 
the divine benevolence is not seconded, and the perdition of the 
heathen lies not on God, but on ijour Society and the other enemies of 
missions ! God is not that "cruel, unjust and tyrannical Being" 
which you represent Him to be, but you, ye opposers of Preach- 
ers and of Bihle Societies, you are the cruel beings whom the 
heathen will accuse hereafter. ** God is unwilling,," but you 
are willing the heathen should perish. He has not withheld, but 
has provided the means of salvation, but you, you withhold them, 
and doom the heathen to destruction ! 

2 Obj. — "Where there is no law there is no transgression; 
if therefore, the heathen have not Revelation they are not trans- 
gressors." (This is the point of his argument.) The heathen 
have a law, the law -or light of Nature, the law or light of Con- 
science, and the law or light of Tradition, which if they abuse 
they are transgressors. You might as well say, a child cannot 
sin because he has not as much light as a man, or that a common 
citizen could not offend because lie did not understand the laws 
of his country as well as a lawyer. As there are degrees of light, 
so there will be degrees of guilt. 

3. Obj. — " It is impossible to know any thing of God but by 
Revelation, (l Cor. ii. 11.) therefore the heathen must have had 
revelation." Not so, it is possible to know much of God with- 
out Revelation. What says the Psalmist, " The Heavens de- 
clare the glory of God, and the firmament shewetk his handy 
work. Day unto day utter eth speech, and night unto night shew- 
eth knowledge. Their voice is gone out through all the earth, 
and their words to the end of the world," Ps. xix. 1, 4. And 
what says the Apostle? Rom i. 20. " TW invisible things of 
Him are clearly seen by the things that are Wide, even his eternal 
Power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse." It is 
certain, therefore, that some knowledge of God may be obtained 
without a revelation. And I again defy Amicus to show that 
any of his "pious" philosophers had any more knowledge of God 
than what may be derived by mere Reason from looking at the 
heavens and the works of God. 

4. Obj. — " Christendom falls behind the very heathen in the 
essentials of true faith !!!" He speaks also of the " pious hea- 
then" (as much a contradiction in terms, as a holy sinner, a wise 
fool or a believing infidel !) and of "apostatized Christendom !!" 
— Apostatized from what ? from Popery ? or from Paganism ? 
Reader, what a pity the Apostles ever came to the Gentile world ! 
What a pity the Reformers had not been strangled in their era- 



£62 

die ! What a pity the Bible could not be returned to Judea, or 
blotted out of existence, and the Koran or Veda substituted in 
its place ! What a pity all our churches could not be overturn- 
ed, the preachers silenced, and every vestige of Christianity 
destroyed! we should be good Quakers then ! — But this terri- 
ble Bible— this delusive Light — these cruel Apostles and their 
followers have turned away the people from Paganism, Deism 
and Atheism, led a large portion of the world to " apostatize" 
from Satan, and sunk Europe and these United States, into a 
depth of spiritual ignorance far below the enlightened Hotten- 
tots, Tartars and Hindoos ! — What a pity the " pious heathen" 
would not take compasssion on us and send us missionaries to 
teach us the folly of worshipping only one God, the absurdi- 
ty of believing in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour — in short, 
communicating to us the blessings of ignorance, superstition, 
self-torture, licentiousness and self-immolation, and substituting 
their quack nostrums for the Balm of the Gospel, and the pre- 
scriptions of the Great Physician ! t 
The Public will soon be convinced that this is no sectarian 
dispute, no contention about trifles, about externals and cere- 
monies, as some profess to have thought it. It must be already 
apparent that the dispute is between the Bible and the Light of 
Nature, between the true God and Jupiter, between Jesus. Christ 
and idols, between Christianity and heathenism ! The hea- 
then (whose very name is used by all the Scripture writers as 
another name for wickedness,) the heathen, says Amicus, have 
ei more of the essentials of true faith than boasted Christendom." 
By looking then at the heathen worship we shall soon discover 
what Amicus considers the " essentials of true faith." 

1. To worship nmny gods. The Bible and Christendom 
hold but One. Butmll heathen nations ancient and modern, 
worship a multitude. I challenge him to name a single heathen 
nation that ever worshipped only one God. 

2. To worship immoral deities. He has selected the Greeks 
and Romans as the most eminent for piety, and what gods did 
they worship ? Their Jupiter whom they called the Omnipo- 
tent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, the Thunderer, the Father of 
gods and men, and who was manifestly regarded as their su- 
preme Deity, was an immoral and infamous character. He de- 
throned his father Saturn, married his sister Juno, quarrelled 
frequently with the other gods, debauched several females, and 
was guilty of Sodomy with Ganymedes ! Mars was the god of 
war, Mercury of thieves, Bacchus of drunkenness, and Venus the 
goddess of unchastity. Scaevola, the famous Roman pontiff, 



26*3 

says "they make one god steal, another commit adultery, and 
nothing can he imagined so monstrous or so vicious, but it may 
be found attributed to the gods." And Varro, the most learned 
of the Romans, says "all things are attributed to the gods 
which men, even the vilest and worst of men could be guilty of." 
I defy Amicus to produce one instance, from all antiquity, of a 
nation acknowledging and worshipping a Holy God. The 
worship then of immoral deities is another " essential," of true 
religion ! 

3. To worship irrational deities. The Egyptians were the 
most enlightened of all the ancient nations, insomuch that Py- 
thagoras and his other " pious" philosophers travelled into 
Egypt to finish their education. If we may judge from the 
multitude of their gods, they must be in Amicus' estimation the 
most religious of all people. But what were their gods ? Their 
chief deity was a Bull who was kept in a magnificent temple, 
fed most luxuriously, attended by a great number of priests, &c. 
Their other deities were cats, dogs, serpents, and many vegeta- 
bles, such as leeks and onions ; insomuch that the satirical Ju- 
venal observed their "gods grew in their gardens !" Amicus 
cannot mention a nation that did not worship some inanimate 
things. This then is another " essential of true faith !" 

4. To worship devils. The worship of idols is expressly so 
called, Lev. xvii. 7. " And they shall no more offer their sa- 
crifices unto devils." 2 Chron. xi. 15. "And Jeroboam or- 
dained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and. 
for the calves which he had made." 1 Cor. x. 20. " But I say, 
the things which the Gentiles (heathen) sacrifice, they sacrifice 
to devils, and not to God. And I would not that ye should have 
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord 
and the cup of devils, &c." These " devils" were the idols of 
that very Greece of whose light and piety Amicus has boasted so 
much. Now as he cannot produce a heathen nation that did not 
worship idols or devils, and as this was a prominent part of their 
religion, this must be one of the " essentials of true faith." 

5. Another " essential" must be to rely on our own works and 
innocence for salvation. For not a heathen ever taught, preach- 
ed or thought of any other way. They so exalted human merit 
as to put a man on a par with their supreme God ! Thus Chrys- 
ippus says, " Jupiter has no pre-eminence above Dion in vir- 
tue." Seneca says, " a wise man lives upon a parity or equal- 
ity with the gods." And Plotinus the Philosopher, when ask- 
ed to join in a sacrifice to the gods, answered, " It is for them 
to come to me, not for me to go to them." These, reader, are 
the " essentials" of true Quaker "faith !!!" 



264 

6. Another essential is to be ignorant, totally ignorant of Jesus 
Christ. For not one of these " pious heathen", ever heard of 
him, spoke of him, or knew any thing ahout him. The Apostle 
tells the Ephesians, that hefore lie preached to them they were 
" without Christ." Eph. ii. 12. 

7. Another essential of true religion, according to your 
Friend, is to he strangers to the Covenant of Grace, to be without 
hope and without the true God. Unless Amicus can show that 
the Ephesians were worse off in this respect than the other hea- 
then ! for the Apostle says, that before their conversion they 
were " strangers from the covenants of promise, having no 
hope, and without God in the world." Eph. ii. 12. 

Reader, the above are the " essentials of the faith" of the 
" pious heathen :" the faith which Amicus calls the " true 
faith ;" the faith from which Christendom has " apostatized ;" 
the faith in which those who have the Bible fall " far behind" 
the heathen ; the faith which " Internal Light" teaches and the 
Bible contradicts ! 

PAUL. 



265 

Seventh-day t 4th mo. 20, 1822, 

LETTER XXVI. 

When we consider that John by the light of Revelation 
"saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all na- 
tions, and kindreds, and people and tongues, standing before the 
throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms 
in their hands," Rev. vii. 9. « White robes," emblems of 
purity, and *• Palms in their hands," the tokens of victory over 
sin; and this purity, and this victory, the happy attainment of 
" a great multitude which no man could number," and this great 
multitude composed « of all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, 
and people," I think we are put in possession of evidence, that 
establishes beyond a doubt, the truth of the apostolic assertion, 
that " the grace of God that bringeth salvation" is not, and 
never was bounded by geographical lines, nor confined to any 
description of mankind ! The fact disclosed by the great Apos- 
tle in this text, is I think, a positive proof that the love of God is 
extended to all his rational family, that the means of salvation 
are as unlimited as the presence and power of the Deity. The 
doctrine of my opponent is at war, not only with the sentiments 
of the inspired writers, but with facts which demonstrate in the 
clearest manner, the unbounded mercy and infinite justice, of 
our adorable Creator. 

It was an aphorism of our blessed Lord, (6 By their fruits ye 
shall know them. Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs 
of thistles." When I see an individual or a nation, bringing 
forth the fruits of goodness, mercy, temperance, patience, jus- 
tice, and charity, there methinks I see the work of God's good 
Spirit, and I am willing to acknowledge these, however they 
may differ from me in doctrines or opinions, as the subjects of 
Divine Grace. ** Every good and perfect gift cometh down 
from above." It is impossible for our weak human nature, un- 
assisted by Divine Grace, to produce these good fruits ! My 
opponent holds the doctrine of «< Man's total depravity." How 
then can he reconcile his doctrine with the fact, That those who 
never had the Scriptures, nor any outward knowledge of 
Christ, have been eminently virtuous ? I think it can only be 
reconciled by admitting, that these pious heathen were largely 
assisted by Divine Grace ! 

The measure of God's mercy is not to be estimated by his 
outward gifts and blessings ! He gives these to « the evil and 
to the good." He has given the Scriptures to as ungrateful 
and rebellious a people as ever existed, not excepting the Jews ! 
He has withheld them from millions, who without them have 
manifested more of the fruits of sincere piety and devotion ? 
3* 



266 

than those who have had this blessing! This position may be 
considered by many as problematical, if not untenable. A re- 
ference to historical facts will, I think, confirm it. I am aware 
of the influence that interested men have had, to produce on 
their hearers a different sentiment. Many of the Authors of 
Books, Pamphlets, and Tracts, have been on one side of the 
question. We have had little but exparte evidence. There 
are two heathen nations, however, of whose virtues we have 
had some small testimony — to which I shall refer, after giving 
a very imperfect view of the vices and enormities of those who 
have been favoured with the Scriptures ! 

It was not long after the exit of the Apostles, that professing 
Christians, with the Scriptures in their hands, and professing 
to he guided by them as the rule of faith and practice, quarrel- 
ed and shed human blood in torrents on the most trifling differ- 
ence of sentiment. — It was sufficient cause for the perpetra- 
tion of the greatest cruelties that one thought Easter should 
be celebrated on one day, while his brother thought it ought to 
be celebrated on another. — It was an occasion of the bitterest 
en nity, that one believed in the Unity of the Deity, whilst the 
other thought that God was composed of parts, and hence as 
well as from other causes, the most violent and outrageous 
measures were pursued that ever disgraced human nature, 
and hence it is doubtful, whether Christians by profession, 
have not shed much more human blood, than was ever shed by 
the heathens on religious differences! Hanging, burning and 
gibbeting in their simple forms are mercies in comparison of 
the tortures which have been inflicted by Christian professors 
on each other, merely on account of a difference of opinion with 
respect to the meaning of the Scriptures, " the only and infal- 
lible rule of faith and practice," as affirmed by my opponent, 
and without wj^ich, as he affirms, there is no salvation. And 
these outrages upon humanity have not been confined to one 
sect of Christians — there is hardly any sect wholly free from 
the foul charge! ! ! The Catholics under their Pope — the Cal- 
vinists under their founder — the Episcopalians under their 
Bishops and Arch-bishops, whether Lutheran or Calvinistic, 
and the Presbyterians under their respective sources of autho- 
rity and power. — And this is not all, their Clergy, the highest 
officers in their churches, have manifested a cruelty, an ava- 
rice, an ambition, a sensuality, wholly unparalleled by heathen 
professors, in some instances claiming a supremacy over their 
temporal rulers, in others making use of the temporal autho- 
rity to force people into a conformity with doctrines the most 
absurd ; and derogatory, not only to the character of the Deity, 
but to the plainest maxims of Scripture and common sense. 



267 

iSow where will we find in modern history any parallel in 
atrocity to these ? Where will we find any heathen nation who 
was so depraved as to persecute and shed the blood of a bro- 
ther for a difference of opinion ? If our Lord's criterion be a 
correct one, ** by their fruits ye shall know them" — how shall 
we judge of a people who have brought forth so plentiful a crop 
from thorns and thistles as Christendom has ? — And yet, for- 
sooth, all God's mercy is to be confined within the number 
of the selfish, cruel, avaricious, sensual professors of Chris- 
tianity!!! Oh what presumption !-— Poor debased Christen- 
dom — Instead of bowing herself to the earth, and laying her 
mouth in the very dust — she dares recount her good works be- 
fore the Omniscient — she claims an exclusive right to heaven — 
rings her weekly, her daily account of her alms deeds, in 
the ears of God and man ! ! ! — and is likely, I fear, to retire 
from the public display of her virtues, less justified in the di- 
vine sight, than the poor creature who dares not so much as 
lift his eyes to heaven, but smiting his breast, begs only for 
mercy from the fountain of universal Love ! 

My opponent seems much offended at my saying that <w Chris- 
tendom falls behind the very heathen in the essentials of true 
faith.' 99 By " true faith," w Amicus" does not understand that 
faith which satisfies itself with preaching and singing, eating 
bread and drinking wine, dipping and sprinkling people. Of 
this faith, I believe the professors of Christianity may boast a 
greater share than any other people — except the Scribes and 
Pharisees. It is a faith that may be attained without the mor- 
tification of a single passion, the sacrifice of one darling lust. 
By true faith, I mean, that « Faith that worketh by love :" 
Gal. v. 6.— that faith that actuates "pious heathens" to deeds of 
mercy and acts of charity — I say pious heathen, without the 
least fear that anv liberal Christian will deem the terms irra- 
tional or « contradictory." To say there are « pious heathen," 
" Paul" thinks as great an offence against propriety of speech, as 
to say there are such things as « wise fools" — this may be, yet 
I do not think it would be a very difficul; matter to shew that 
both these kinds of people are to be found within the human 
family ! The "essentials of true faith," are good works. «» Faith," 
says the Apostle, " without works is dead," James ii. 17. «.« By 
their fruits ye shall know them," says our Lord. This crite- 
rion, sanctioned as it is, by divine authority, is certainly the 
best that could possibly be given to man for ascertaining the 
merits of his brother, yet my opponent prefers one of his own 
making! ! ! 

In order to shew that those fruits by which we may distin- 
guish the real adopted child of God from the* vain boaster of 



268 

his own works are not confined to those who have the Scrip- 
tures, I will appeal to facts, and in this appeal I have no doubt 
of being able to shew that while professing Christians of the 
highest stamp have produced the disgraceful fruits of* the 
" thorn," and the ** thistle, 1 ' that portion of God's family whom 
these high professors call heathens, savages, barbarians and 
idolaters, have far outstripped them in divine works of mercy, 
justice, and truth. 

I suppose it will be admitted, that there is no nation on earth, 
(except it be the Americans) who boast more of their religious 
attainments than the British. These high professors, these 
pretended disciples of that religion which breathes the lan- 
guage of peace on earth and good will to men, with the Bible 
in one hand and the sword in the other, invaded the territory 
of the unoffending Hindoos, burned their towns and hamlets, 
butchered and starved innumerable multitudes of the rightful 
owners of the soil, and finally reduced sixty or eighty millions 
of people to a state ot subjection or vassalage. And this is not 
all, after making them taste the bitter fruit of that religion 
which prevails throughout Christendom, and is falsely called 
the Christian Religion — after forcing them to wear the yoke of 
political slavery, they set every engine to work to bring them 
under the more odious burden of religious domination* Clau- 
dius Buchanan, a man known in the literary world as an au- 
thor, seeing the vast sums continually flowing into the civil 
purse, seems to have thought that the clergy had been *« ne- 
glected in the daily ministration" of wealth, squeezed from the 
labour of the poor oppressed natives, and therefore w r rites « a 
Memoir on the expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment 
for British India." To those who understand what an Eccle- 
siastical Establishment means, any explanation of his motives 
is unnecessary ; but to many of the inhabitants of our highly 
favoured land, long exempted from the physical power of the 
Priesthood, it may be proper to say, that an Ecclesiastical Es- 
tablishment means, a power vested in the Clergy to force from 
every man (who will not voluntarily devote his time and labour 
to support a luxurious set of worldlings) the tenth part of his 
produce, besides various other demands of a religious, or ra- 
ther irreligious nature. 

Now what is the character of this nation whose territory we 
Christians invaded, whose inhabitants we butchered, and those 
we did not butcher have enslaved ? Truly, if we take their 
character from those, whose interest it is to villify thenu they 
must be a very idolatrous, immoral people ! Through the me- 
dium of tracts, pamphlets and prints e:ot up by men who were 
deeply concerned, to reap the fruits of Hindoo industry, we havQ 



/ 



269 

had the most disgusting picture of tins poor people, that perhaps 
was ever drawn of human nature — and yet a picture very un- 
like the original, if we may credit numberless disinterested 
authors who have from a long and intimate knowledge of that 
people, had the best opportunities of knowing them. 

Abulfazel, Secretary to Akbar, the Mogul Emperor, who 
was deemed one of the most learned and best writers of the 
East, and who had much opportunity of knowing the Hindoos, 
gives the following testimony of their character : •'They one 
and all, believe in the unity of the Godhead, and although 
they hold images in high veneration, yet they are by no means 
Idolaters, as the ignorant suppose. I have myself frequently 
discoursed on the subject with many learned and upright men 
of this religion, and comprehend their doctrine, which is, that 
Images are only representatives of celestial beings, to whom 
they turn themselves while at prayer, to prevent their thoughts 
from wandering." Again, says he : «* they are religious, affable, 
courteous to strangers, cheerful, enamoured of knowledge, 
lovers of justice, given to retirement, able in business, grateful 
for favours, admirers of truth, and of unbounded fidelity in all 
their dealings." What a noble character is this ! Happy would 
it be for Christendom, if one half as much could truly be said 
of her; and jet we want to convert the Hindoos to our kind of 
religion ! 

Jn confirmation of this character of the Hindoos given by 
Abulfazel, a Bengal officer, in a pamplet describing their cha- 
racter, makes the following statement : « An experience of 
seven and twenty years will enable me to do justice to their 
unexampled honesty and fidelity. Will it be believed in 
Europe, that a gentleman having twenty servants in his house 
shall entrust them with the care of his liquors, plate, money, 
jewels, &c. of all which, the keys remain in their hands, and 
shall leave his house for a month or more, and on his return 
find every article as he left it, undissipated. untouched and un- 
impaired? — I have myself been in this predicament— have 
had in my house at one time, more than eighty dozen of wine, 
three or four hundred pounds in gold and silver. b< sHcs plate 
and linen, all under the care of my Hindoo servants, who 
kept the keys of every article — yet I cannot with a safe 
conscience charge any of those servants with having ever 
purloined a single bottle of vine, the smallest article of 
plate, or as much as a rupee from the money thus deposited ! ! ! 
Let me then ask the candid reader, let me ask Mr. Buchanan 
himself, who uninfluenced by the prospect of professional ad- 
vantage had possibly been less willing to vilify the Hindoos, 
whether in Great Britain, under such obvious circumstances 



'270 

of temptation, the master's property would have been safe for 
a single day ?" — <»I trust that while sobriety, honesty, temper- 
ance, and fidelity are held estimable among mankind, the hum- 
ble possessor of these virtues among the Hindoos will be deem- 
ed not unworthy even of Christian emulation !" So far my 
author, who I think shews that as « men do not gather grapes 
of thorns, nor figs or thistles," the Hindoos, if condemned in 
toto to everlasting torments, will not be condemned for being a 
worse people than their Christian oppressors! 

On turning our eye to scenes that have been exhibited on 
this side of the Atlantic, we see perhaps equal cause to abhor 
the conduct of Christian professors towards an innocent unof- 
fending people ! We see that men who fled from persecution 
and cruelty, inflicted on them by their fellow Christians, came 
on our shores, and after a friendly, kind, and hospitable recep- 
tion by the natives, begin and carry on the work of murder 
and destruction against their benefactors, until whole tribes, 
men, women and children, were swept from the face of the 
earth ! Now it the tree is to be known by its fruits, who were 
the barbarians in this case ? Let the reader answer the ques- 
tion to himself. 

And what was the character of the natives of this country, 
when they were treated with common justice by •• that good 
man, William Penn V Kind, benevolent, hospitable, charita- 
ble, grateful, and so faithful to their engagements, that during 
seventy years they never forfeited their pledge, never violated 
their word, so that it has been observed that Peims Treaty 
with the Indians, ratified without an oath, is the only one that 
never was broken. 

And yet, according to my opponent, these people were des- 
titute of divine grace — they produced the fruit of the good tree 
without any goodness in them — in other words, contrary to our 
Lord's express declaration, " Men do gather grapes of thorns, 
and figs of thistles ! ! !" 

But says my opponent, "there is so much Quakerism in the 
world, such an obstinate notion that the heathen already have sa- 
ving light, that the divine Commands are not obeyed, the divine 
benevolence is not seconded, and the perdition of the heathen, lies 
not on God, but on your Society and other enemies of Missions." 
In this ebullition of zeal, (i Paul" has forgot one material point 
— he has omitted to prove that the heathen do go to perdition ! 
and before this is proved, he must prove that our Lord and the 
Evangelists and Apostles were totally in an error on this sub- 
ject. "Amicus" has produced many of the plainost, most explicit 
texts of Scripture, to prove that " the grace of God that bring- 
eth salvation, hath appeared unto all men." — "Paul" has not pro- 



271 



duced one clear passage from the sacred writings to prove tha 
contrary, nor can he ever do it — and therefore he must still go 
on with his strained inferences, sarcastic remarks, and sophis- 
tical deductions, some of which I intend to notice in my next 
number. AMICUS. 



Saturday, April 27, 1822. 

LETTER XXY. 

"Idolaters shall have their part in the lake that burneth with Jirt 
and brimstone; which is the second death," Rev. xxi. 8. 

Until ** Amicus" can produce one heathen who was not an 

idolater, he must either give up his hope for them, or give up 
the Bible. For idolatry is in Scripture described as the great- 
est of all abominations in the sight of God. Therefore, when 
he talks so much about the * virtues,' the < piety,' the * truth, 
justice and mercy,' of the heathen, I ask him to name a nation 
or an individual not guilty of open and habitual idolatry. As 
murder implies a disposition to commit all lesser crimes ; so 
idolatry implies a heart at enmity with the only true God and 
disposed to commit all minor sins. It is in vain therefore to 
talk of the < virtues' or the * piety' of a man who is guilty of 
this most gross offence. Rut I will answer his objections more 
particularly. 

Objection 1. — "John saw a multitude which no man could 
number, of all nations, kindred and people, standing before the 
throne," &c. Rev. vii. 9. Any one who will consult the passage 
will perceive that this refers to events which took place under 
the "sixth seal," or just before the reign of Constantine; and 
is a prediction of the spread of the Gospel in that day. The 
Apostles and their successors, unlike your Society, went forth 
as Missionaries to all nations, and the consequence was, some 
of all nations then existing were saved. The Millennium also 
will verify this passage, by bringing in multitudes from all 
corners of the world. But you might as well say there is a 
Millennium in every age, or that there will be a Millennium 
without the knowledge of the Bible, as to say that this text is 
true of every age, or that some of all kindreds will be saved 
without the Bible. 

Obj. 2. — " Some who had no external knowledge of Christ 
have been eminently virtuous, and therefore must have been 
largely assisted by Divine grace." Are not many of the Deists 
of our day equally « xirt%ous?" And will you say that these are 



272 

Christians, or endowed with saving " grace!" I challenge you 
to name a heathen who had more consistent notions of God, or 
showed more regard for Revelation, or for Jesus Christ, than 
many acknowledged Deists of our day. And can these be saved ? 
say, «< Amicus." 

Obj. 3. — »* Where shall we find a heathen nation so depraved 
as to persecute and shed the blood of a brother for a difference 
of opinion?" Has "Amicus" forgotten the Ten Roman Persecu- 
tions, and the millions of Christians that were robbed, banished, 
burned and murdered during the first three centuries, by these 
tender hearted pious heathens ? True, they seldom persecuted 
one another ; being of one family, why should they quarrel ? 
The Greeks and Romans tolerated all heathen religions, bore 
with idolatry in every shape; but the moment Christianity 
appeared, kings, philosophers, priests and people combined 
their arms against her ! Wonderful evidence of their « virtue 
and piety !" Just so in your Society, Pelagians, Universalists, 
Socinians, Deists and Atheists can dwell together in amity, 
each holding that it is « no matter what a man believes so he is 
sincere;" and every speaker declaring what doctrine he please, 
provided he does not preach the Gospel! But should the 
Apostles themselves appear among you and preach their old 
doctrines, you would all say " Sit ye down, ye are not called to 
minister," — and that charity which is readily indulged for 
heathen and infidels, would be denied to the followers of Jesus 
Christ. 

Obj. 4. — " These heathen have far outstripped your high 
professors in divine works of mercy, justice and truth. There 
are two nations who have been without the Scriptures, who 
have brought forth more of the fruits of sincere, piety and de- 
votion than those who have had the Bible, — the Hindoos and 
our Western Indians." With the invasion of India by the 
East India Company we have nothing more to do than with the 
wars of Bonaparte ; they are a set of infidel merchants who 
opposed the admission of Christianity into India with all their 
might. In 1813, when they applied to the British Parliament 
for the renewal of their charter, that Body refused, unless 
they would consent to an additional article, permitting Missio- 
naries to reside in India, so long as they behaved peaceably. 
The motion was opposed, upon the Quaker principle, that **the 
Hindoo religion was as good as ours." It was during this de- 
hate, in which Sir Henry Montgomery and Mr. Lushington 
took the lead, that the latter gentleman, (the « Bengal officer" 
whom you quote,) an avowed infidel, contradicted the state- 
ments of Dr. Buchanan, and made the assertions you have 
quoted. Dr. Buchanan, the holy man whose motives you join 



273 

with infidels to vilify, but whose memory will be dear to India 
long after Quakerism shall have been abolished, and hostility 
to missions shall have ceased, — though on his sick and dying 
bed, wrote a memorial and made a statement of facts, which con- 
vinced the Parliament and confounded his adversaries. So 
much for the statement of your « Bengal officer." 

Mulfazel, the other " disinterested author," whom you 
quote, was Secretary to the great Mogul,— in a station where 
we do not generally look either for correct sentiments, or cor- 
rect practice in religion. He was moreover a Mahometan, an 
idolater himself, and therefore little credit is due to his testi- 
mony, — especially when it is in direct opposition to that of Sir 
William Jones, who spent much time in investigating the Sa- 
cred Books and institutions of the Hindoos, — in direct contra- 
diction to that of lord Teignmouth, who was for some time 
Governor General of Bengal, is now President of the Bible 
Society in England, is one of the assistant editors of the Chris- 
tian Observer, and a warm advoeate for missions to India; in 
contradiction also, to the testimony of Charles Grant, one of 
the best men in England, a member of the British Parliament, 
and who has written a masterly Memoir on India, — as well as 
contradictory to that of all the Missionaries. Let the reader 
weigh the testimony of an avowed infidel and a Mahometan, 
against the following testimony of men whose veracity cannot 
be impeached. 

Dr. Buchanan says, the two prominent characteristics of the 
Hindoo superstition, are « Impukity and Blood ;" illustrating 
his declaration by facts which he himself witnessed. William 
Ward who has been twenty-three years in India, and whose testi- 
mony if false may be easily refuted, states, that though the more 
enlightened Hindoos admit the idea of One God, they do not think 
him an object of worship. And accordingly i( among 100,000,000 
of people, there is not to be found one temple consecrated to the 
One God." They speak of their "330 millions of deities," — 
and some of these deities are "sin personified." It is remark- 
able that not one of all their numerous idols, represents a virtue? 
The Greeks and Romans did dedicate temples to Truth, Jus- 
tice, Chastity, &c. but I defy «« Amicus" or any other advocate 
for Hindoo " piety," to mention the name of a single Hindoo 
idol representative of & virtue, — or a single deity of a virtuous 
character ! " Their very gods," says Mr. Ward, « are monsters 
of vice, — their worship is full of abominable impurities, — their 
priests ringleaders in crime — their Scriptures encourage pride, 
impurity, falsehood and murder, and their heaven is a brothel!" 
« Nor do any of the Hindoos die with the hope of future happi- 
ness, except those who drown or burn themselves." «* By a 
35 



274 

future state, a Hindoo understands nothing more than trans- 
migration; 99 and common persons, therefore, when dying, "have 
no hope but of passing into the body of some reptile." (v. 
Ward's Farewell Letters, Let. 5.) To speak of the fruits of 
" mercy" in a country where such a thing as an Alms House 
or a Hospital, or a Benevolent Society never was known, — 
where children are allowed by their religion to expose their 
aged parents to the Ganges, — where mothers throw their in- 
fants to the alligators, — where the eldest son kindles the fune- 
ral pile of a widowed mother, — where children tread the earth 
into the grave around a living parent, — where idols are pleased 
with human blood, — and whene the multitude set up a joyful 
Midut when imiatuated victims sacrifice their lives; to produce 
these as ** works of mercy," shows a curious taste! 

out hear another witness. The Jibbe Dubois, a Roman Ca- 
tholic, who resided many years in India, whose work was ap- 
proved by Col. Wilkes, Governor of the Mysore country, was 
purchased by the Madras Government for 2000 pagodas, was 
afterwards published by the East India Company, and recom- 
mended by some of their members as " the most comprehen- 
sive and minute account extant in any European language of 
the manners of the Hindoos," gives the following testimony. 
After stating that "there is but little respect for parental au- 
thority," and little filial affection, he says : " when the Brah- 
mans find themselves in trouble, there is no falsehood or perjury 
they will not employ to extricate themselves. And they are 
not ashamed to declare openly, that untruth and false swearing 
are virtuous when they tend to our own advantage. When 
such horrible morality is taught by the theologians of India, is 
it to be wondered at that falsehood should be so predominant 
among the people ?" page 107. "There is no country on earth 
where the sanction of an oath is so little respected :" page 197. 
(So much for their " truth !") The feelings of commiseration and 
pity for the sufferings of others never enter a Brahman's heart. 
He will see an unhappy being perish on the road, or even at 
his own gate, if belonging to another cast, and will not stir to 
help him to a drop of water, though it were to save his life :" 
page 197. (So much for their "mercy.") "The greater 
part of their institutions, civil and religious appear to be con- 
trived to nourish and stimulate that passion," (incontinence) 
page 191. " Whatever their religion sets before them tends to 
encourage their vices, and consequently all their senses, pas- 
sions and interests, are leagued in its favour," page 390. He 
then speaks of their " dancing girls," the " indecent figures" 
engraved on their temples, and their " monstrous obscenities;" 
and closes by saying, that (( a religion more shameful or indecent 



27b 

has never existed among a civilized people. Licentiousness 
prevails almost universally without shame or remorse. Every 
excess is countenanced by the irregular lives of their gods, and by 
the rites which their worship prescribes .*" 420, 421. The above 
are extracts from a work recommended by the enemies of mis- 
sions. Again ; Daniel Poor, one of our American Missionaries 
to Ceylon, a man whose character for piety and veracity is 
well known in this country, in a letter to Jordan Lodge in the 
State of Vermont, says : " The gods worshipped by this people 
are numerous, and the character of the best of them is abominable. 
The people here are professedly worshippers of the devil. Their 
fear of him is great, and their offerings to him many. In every 
place temples tolirn> x are erected ; there are as many as twelve 
or fifteen in this parish in which this diabolical worship is offered. 
And finally, the majority of the people bear the names of the 
different demons. Yes, the very names by which this people 
are called, the character of their gods, the nature of their 
worship, their maxims, customs and practices, unitedly bear 
testimony to the melancholy fact, that this people are in bon- 
dage to the Prince of darkness." Boston Recorder, 1819, 
p. 200. 

Such are the testimonies of men who are neither infidels 
nor Mahometans, but holy " disinterested 1 ' men, who like the 
Apostles of old have taken their lives in their hands, gone to 
an unhealthy climate to <« open the eyes of the Gentiles, and to 
turn them from the power of Satan unto God." But to remove 
all objections, I will bring testimony from men whose piety will 
not be troublesome to you — men of mere literature. The Asia- 
tic Society in their Researches, state that « the barbarism of 
the interior nations of Sumatra, Borneo, and other islands, al- 
most exceeds belief. It is usual for the Batta tribes to kill and 
eat their criminals and prisoners of war. And they them- 
selves declare, that they frequently eat their own relations when 
aged and infirm ; and that not so much to gratify their appe- 
tite, as to perform a pious ceremony." « The most singular 
feature in the character of the Mfoers is the necessity imposed 
on every person, of sometime in his life imbruing his hands in 
human blood ! And in general among all their tribes, no per- 
son is permitted to marry, till he can show the skull of a man 
whom he has slaughtered. They eat the flesh of their enemies 
like the Battas, and drink out of their skulls ; and Ijhe orna- 
ments of their houses are human skulls and teeth !" Asiatic 
Researches, vol. x. pp. 203, 217. However your Society may 
look upon these things, Christians generally would hardly look 
on them as « divine works of mercy." 

But perhaps other nations are better. Let us see, The 



276 

Persians border on India, what is their character ? Major Scott 
Waring, who spent some time in that country, says : u The man- 
ners of the Persians are formed in a great degree, on the 
principles of Lord Chesterfield ; they conceive it their duty to 
please, and to effect this they forget all sentiments of honour and 
goodfaith." « They are excellent companions, but detestable 
characters." " A people given to a life of rapine will necessa- 
rily have a number of words to express the various modes of 
plunder; and excepting the Mahrattas, (your "virtuous" 
Hindoos) I do not believe that there is a language on earth in 
which the different gradations of robbery to the perpetration of 
the most atrocious crimes are more distinctly marked." « The 
Persians have but a faint, notion of gratitude, for they cannot 
conceive that any one should be guilty of generosity, without 
some sinister motive." « Philosophers have held it for a maxim, 
that the most notorious liar utters a hundred truths for every 
felsehood. This is not the case in Persia, They seem unac- 
quainted with the beauty of truth, and only think of it when 
it is likely to advance their interest." Tour to Shiras by E. S. 
Waring, Esq. So much for their " truth." 

Captain Pottinger, another traveller, who resided sometime 
in Persia, says : « I feel inclined to look upon Persia at the pre- 
sent day to be the very fountain head of every species of cruelty, 
tyranny, meanness, injustice, extortion and infamy, that can 
disgrace and pollute human nature, and have ever been found 
in any age or nation." Pottinger, p. 212. 

Here for the present I must pause. Let the reader decide 
whether Hindostan and the adjacent heathen countries have 
« more of the essentials of true faith," more of the « works of 
mercy, justice and truth," more « virtue, piety and devotion," 
than Christendom; and judge whether the Bible would not be 
a blessing, and the Christian religion a better " kind of reli- 
gion" than that under which they now suffer. In a future num- 
ber I will exhibit something of the religion of our western In- 
dians. The more this subject is examined, the more clearly 
it will appear that your doctrine of Universal Light is not 
more contrary to Scripture, than it is to fact. PAUL. 



Saturday, May 11, 1822. 

LETTER XXVI. 

66 Woe unto them that call evil good* and good evil; that put dark- 
ness for light, and light for darkness." Isa. v. 20. 

Facts are stubborn tilings. The finest theories are rent by 
them as cobwebs before cannon balls. The doctrine that there 



277 

is in man an Universal Light which supercedes the necessity of the 
Bible, the ministry and missions, is so pleasing to the natural 
heart, that it would he universally believed, were it not contra- 
ry to all history as well as to the Word of God. The public 
will excuse my dwelling so long upon this topic, as it is the 
very foundation of your system. If this be undermined your 
system talis of course. 

Now to show the fallacy of your fundamental principle, in 
the first place, twenty-one arguments from Scripture were 
produced, — only one of which has «« Amicus" attempted to 
answer. Twenty arguments remain perfectly unnoticed! On 
the other hand, I appeal to the public, if I have not noticed and 
given a consistent answer to all the leading objections he has 
brought,' — such for instance, as John i. 9. 1 Cor. xii. 7. Rev, 
vii. 9, Tit. ii. 11, 12. 

In the second place, I appealed to his own experience, 
and challenged him to prove that he derived his knowledge of 
Jesus and salvation from Internal Light, and not from external 
revelation. On this subject also several honest questions were 
proposed, all of which remain unnoticed and unanswered ! 

In the third place, I appealed to facts, and asked : (i Have 
not the nations which possess the Bible incomparably greater 
light than the nations which are destitute ?" He did not at 
first, deny the fact, but accounted for the superior light of 
Christendom on the principle of the Bible " turning men's 
attention to internal light," as if a candle would be of service in 
discovering the sun! The next appeal was to the heathen 
world: and it was shown, that not a nation nor an individual 
without external revelation, ever loved and served the only 
true God. He was challenged to produce, and has been unable 
to produce one heathen moralist or theologian, inculcating the 
doctrine of the Trinity — one who spoke of Jesus Christ or of a 
Mediator, — one who relied for justification on any righteousness 
but his own, — one who taught the necessity of an atonement, — 
one who taught the doctrine of total depravity or of regener- 
ation, — one who lived an holy life, — one who worshipped the 
only true God, or one who was not a gross idolater ! No such 
nations or individuals has he found. He has indeed quoted the 
Hindoos as having « more of the essentials of true faith," more 
of the works of "justice, mercy and truth," than the nations 
of Christendom. But the testimony of his Mahometan and in- 
fidel, who had felt little interest in the subject, and made but 
superficial inquiry, was rebutted by the testimony of various 
persons of unimpeachable integrity, who devoted years to the 
investigation of the subject : by their testimony it was proved 
that the religion of this your chosen nation is impure^ licentious, 
cruel and idolatrous ! 



27S 

The above is a concise view of our present argument. And 
now I have only a few more questions to ask, and then, I think, 
this subject, with all who reverence truth, will be put to rest. 

I wish an honest, unevasive answer to each and all the fol- 
lowing questions: 1. Is not the worship oj the one true God 
essential t& true piety? Is not the worship of idols (or of images) 
a fundamental error? •« Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me. Thou shalt not make unto thyself anv graven image, &c." 
Ex xx. 3, 4. Were not the Israelites more severely punished 
for idolatry than for any other sin? And is not idolatry spo- 
ken of through the Bible as the principal «« abomination'' of 
the heathen? And now have you produced, or can you produce 
an individual, not to say a nation, destitute of the Scriptures, 
not guilty of gross idolatry ? 

2. Is not faith in Jesus Christ essential to salvation? " Who- 
soever believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not 
shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16. (We of course except in- 
fants, idiots, &c. who are incapable of faith.) But can an adult 
be saved without faith in Christ ? You must say No, or con- 
tradict the Bible. Now you have not produced, you cannot 
produce one instance of a person exercising faith in Christ 
before he had some external revelation concerning him. For 
"how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? 19 
Unless therefore, you can show that faith is not essential, or 
that faith can come without hearing, you must acknowledge 
that without the Bible men have not sufficient light 

3. Is there any other nam^ than that of Jesus by which a 
sinner can be saved? "NHther is there salvation in any 
other ; for there is none other name under heaven given among 
men whereby we must be saved :" Acts iv. 12. Now can you 
name a single heathen (by a heathen I mean one entirely 
destitute of external revelation) who showed any acquaintance 
with Jesus Christ? If not, you must admit the heathen have 
not sufficient light— and your principle of universal light is 
false : I appeal to fact. 

4. Is there any other foundation upon which a sinner can 
build with safety, except the Mediatorial work of Jesus Christ? 
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which 
is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. iii. 11. Now produce one heathen 
who built on this foundation, or give up your doctrine of Uni- 
versal Light. 

5. Is there any other way to the Father but through Christ ? « I 
am the way — no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 
xiv. 6. Now either show me one heathen who approached God 
through Christ, or acknowledge the fallacy of your doctrine. 

6. Does not eternal life depend on knowing God and Jesus 



279 

Christ ? « This is life eternal, that they might know thee the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hath sent." John 
xvii. 3. Now I appeal to facts, and challenge you to produce 
an individual heathen who knew any thing of Jesus Christ, 
Neither Socrates, nor Marcus durelius had this knowledge of 
him. Come, "Amicus," if there be so much "light," so much 
« true faith," so much «* piety and devotion" among those who 
have not the Bible, it will be easy to produce instances. Come 
" Amicus," make the trial ; give us at least one example. 

After you have answered the above doctrinal questions, 
I request you to answer the following historical ones. Please 
account for the following facts. 

_ 1. The ignorance and impiety of those in Christian lands 
who are partially deprived of the Bible and the other external 
lights. Go into those districts of our country where there is 
no public worship, no preaching, no organized Christian So- 
ciety — or go into those families in this borough who neglect the 
Bible, (if they have it in their houses) who neglect preaching 
and other means of external light,^-and witness their igno- 
rance and wickedness. Talk to them on the subject of salva- 
tion, they are almost as ignorant of themselves, of God and of 
Jesus Christ as the brutes around them. If you doubt the fact 
make the experiment in this same borough, (where you will ad- 
mit there is more than usual <f Internal light") and you will 
doubt no longer. \ 

Now what is there in a heathen atmosphere that should render 
the inhabitants more enlightened than in the United States I 
If people here are so ignorant, how benighted must they be in 
heathen lands! 

2. Account for the ignorance of our Western Indians. You 
have selected them as an example of light and piety; but 
wherein is either of these manifested ? They acknoxvledge, it 
is true, a Great Spirit, but like all Deists, they have no notion 
of his holiness or justice, do not believe he interferes with 
mortals, and pa y him no worship I On the other hand they do 
worship the devil, and vindicate their conduct in so doing upon 
the principle that the good Spirit does not need to be propitiat- 
ed, and only the Evil Spirit is to be feared. They universally 
sacrifice to the snake, and are so superstitious, that sorcerers and 
wizards are the most influential men in their tribes. The 
savage and revengeful ferocity with which they torment, and 
even eat their enemies, is well known. Not two years have 
elapsed, since we had an account in the newspapers of one of 
the tribes on the Missouri impaling a little infant, as a sacrifice 
to the evening star! — and nothing but her flight saved the mo- 
ther from a similar fate ! As to their * light," David Folsom. 



280 

one of the Choctaw chiefs, in a letter dated Sept. 3, 1820, 
says : i6 Brother, I am thankful to the good people in your coun- 
try in sending Christian people to us to lead us out of darkness 
to the light. Brother, we Choctaws has heen in darkness and 
ignorant so long, that we have suffered much; the Choctaws 
know there is a God who is a Maker of all things, but no know- 
ledge of Jesus Christ, ami therefore the wicked ways were our 
path, we had no one to tell us in what way we should serve 
God. But now I hope my nation have found a true friend, and 
forever more our children may live together as brothers and 
sisters, and worship the true God of Israel." Rel. Rem. p. 92, 
1821. Again: a half breed Cherokee, brother to Catherine 
and David Brown, a young man of some intelligence, called on 
the Missionaries at D wight on the Arkansas, July 9, 1821, who 
was " deplorably ignorant of all spiritual things. He said he 
had never been told, and never knew but that men died like beasts; 
that man has a soul which exalts him above them, and should 
exist after death ;— .or that there was a beloved Book which 
informed us of a future state. He said, he rather thought in 
himself that men did not die as beasts, but that they lived some- 
where after death, but how or where he knew not!" Boston 
Recorder 1822, p. 38. Now how is this consistent with your 
doctrine of an Universal Light superior to the Bible ? 

3. How is it that none of the heathen converts speak of their 
previous light? They all with one consent testify against their 
old religion, and own their former total darkness. The conse- 
quence of sending the Bible to Otaheite and the Georgian Is- 
lands has been, that " their old gods are destroyed, the Morais 
demolished, human sacrifices and infant murder abandoned, and 
the people are every where calling for missionaries." Pomaree, 
the king writes : « I wish you to send those idols to Britain, 
that they may know the likeness of the gods that Tahiti wor- 
shipped. I wish you every blessing, friends, with success in 
teaching this bad land, this foolish land, this land which is igno- 
rant of good, this land that knoweth not the true God, this regard- 
less land," v. Wilson's Memoirs. The king of Raiatea writes : 
« I and all my people are rejoicing because you compassionated 
us and sent missionaries to our dark land, a land of darkness ; 
and they have made known to us the true light, even Jesus 
Christ, by whom we all must be saved. We have known Satan's 
deceit and lies, therefore we have cast down our Morais, and 
burned our gods in the fire. I had covered up the evil spirits 
well, in order to send them to England to you ; but some men 
said that I had taken care of the evil spirits, and that was the 
reason I was overtaken with sickness. I was requested by 
the people to burn the evil spirits, and I said burn them. Oro 



281 

and Hiro were the two evil spirits that were burned. We have 
lived in darkness and in the shade of death under the deceitful 
influence of Satan ; many kings have died and gone to the Po, 
(hell) and now I am made acquainted with the true God." Bos- 
ton Recorder 1822. p. 56. Now quere, are not the heathen con- 
verts as good judges of the light which they had before they 
heard the Gospel, as any in this distant land can be? 

4. How happens it that not one of your " pious heathen," 
ever wrote a book explaining the Gospel way of salvation ? 
Hundreds of the ancients wrote on religious subjects, and com- 
municated all the light they had, but not one of them gives a 
hint of Christianity. Cicero wrote " De Natura Deorum," 
Seneca on « Morals," and Marcus Jlurelius his « Meditations," 
but their light compared with that of any Scripture writer, is 
as that of a glow worm to the light of the sun ! 

5. How happened it that the Apostles found no "Internal 
light" nor i6 pious heathen," where they went? The Apostle 
Paul states, that he was commissioned "to open the eyes of the 
Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power 
of Satan unto God." He tells the Ephesians, that they were 
formerly <« without God and without hope in the world." And 
at Athens '« his spirit was stirred within him, when he saw the 
city wholly given to idolatry .'" Now, if the heathen world is 
so full of'* light," so full of "pious" people as you pretend, how 
did it happen that the Apostle never discovered it? I rather 
think his ideas of « light" and « piety" were very different 
from yours. 

6. How happens it that none of the modern missionaries find 
any light in any of the regions which they visit ? Missiona- 
ries have gone to India, China, South Sea Islands, to the West 
Indies, to Greenland, to Africa, to our western Indians, but 
every where they find " no light, but rather darkness visible." 

7. If the heathen have more light than Christendom, why 
have you ever sent missionaries among them? True, you have 
never troubled them much; but why trouble them at all, if they 
are so wise, and virtuous, and happy ? — Please reconcile your 
doctrine with your practice ! 

Lastly ; what is the meaning of the Millennium ? Are we 
to become heathen ? — or they to become Christian ? Surely, if 
they have « more of the essentials of the true faith," than we, 
it is but right Christendom should conform to them. Accord- 
ing to your statement, paganism is the true religion, — 
and the promise to Christ should read, •« I will give thee the 
Christians for thine inheritance, and the evangelized parts of 
the earth for thy possession ! ! !" We 9 it seems, are sitting in 
the valley and shadow of death, while the sun of Righteousness 
36 



382 



is shining on the heathen; — the Bible instead of dispelling 
Paganism, as we have fondly hoped, is itself to be eclipsed by 
the superior light of conscience, — and a second invasion of 
Goths and Vandals is to introduce into Europe another Age 
of Light ! ! PAUL. 



Seventh-day, 5th mo. 18, 1822. 

LETTER XXVII. 

The great object of the present important discussion on the 
part of Amicus, has been to illustrate the Gospel doctrine, 
so often and so variously expressed in the inspired writings 
«that God is no respecter of persons," but that "in every 
nation they that fear Him and work righteousness, are accepted 
of him." Acts x. 34, 35. I have demonstrated the truth of this 
position so often, not only by shewing that the tenets which op- 
pose it are derogatory to the Divine attributes of Justice and 
Mercy, but by citing the plainest, the most explicit Scripture 
language in its support, that I am persuaded the candid en* 
lightened reader who truly regards the sentiments of the in- 
spired penmen, as a revelation from God, cannot reject it. 
The doctrine of my opponent, that i< the Scriptures are the only 
means of salvation," makes our divine Creator a cruel despot — 
makes him condemn millions of immortal souls to endless misery 
without the shadow of a crime — makes him a " respecter of 
persons" contrary to the positive assurance of the Apostle ! — 
makes him take pleasure in the destruction of his rational 
family, although he has affirmed the contrary ! Shews that the 
Apostle was mistaken when he asserts that " the saving Grace 
of God has appeared unto all men !" — that the Evangelist was 
in an error when he declared, that Christ was «« the true light 
that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world" — that he 
uttered a falsehood when he said that « Christ died for our sins, 
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," — . 
that our Lord, the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, were 
»H utterly deceived, and consequently that the Holy Scriptures 
nre untrue ! ! ! 

It appears to me needless to pursue the argument much 
further. — My opponent's scheme will I think be rejected by en- 
lightened men of all denominations. For the two last centuries 
it has been gradually loosing its advocates, and as the Gospel 
Sun arises will certainly vanish with other gloomy phantoms, 
the offspring of error, the nurselings of superstition, influential 
only in the darkness of apostacy from the faith as it is in Jesus 
our only Saviour, 



283 

Some reply will however be expected to someof my opponent's 
observations and assertions in his last address to us. This 
expectation I will briefly attempt to gratify. 

« Until Amicus can produce one heathen who was not an 
idolater, he must either give up his hope for them, or give up 
the Bible." — As I am not willing either to give up my hope for 
the heathen, or my reverence for the Bible, I will just say, 
that I have never understood that the natives of Pennsylvania, 
composed of many thousands of heathens, were idolaters ! I 
have never heard that they worshipped through the medium of 
images or any terrestrial object, but always considered God 
under the character of the «« Great Spirit," the object of their 
adoration, the source of all their blessings, and as their hope 
and refuge in the hour of affliction and distress ! Of their ex- 
traordinary faith in divine protection, and patience under se- 
vere trials, as well as their gratitude for providential deliver- 
ances, I could give many authentic proofs. 

On the quotation of Amicus from the book of Revelation, 
chap. vii. 9, <« Paul" says : « Any one who will consult the pas- 
sage, will perceive that this refers to events that took place under 
the sixth seal, or just before the reign ofConstantine." That is, 
that «« the great multitude which no man could number, of all 
nations, kindreds, tongues and people, who stood before the 
throne with palms in their hands and clothed with white robes," 
were redeemed just before the reign of Constantine. This is a 
marvellous discovery ! — yet, according to my opponent, not so 
marvellous but that "anij one who will consult the passage will 
perceive it." — If any of my readers beside «* Paul" have per- 
ceived it, I confess their perception has been more acute than 
mine ! I have frequently consulted the passage, but never had 
such a view till now ! And if I had been as clear sighted as 
" Paul," and bad congratulated myself on such a wonderful 
discovery, I should on reflection have been led into some 
doubts of the soundness of my vision, when I recollected, that 
neither the Apostles nor their successors had at that time ever 
seen one fourth part of all the nations, kindreds, tongues and 
people on the earth ! ! ! 

"Are not many of the deists of our day equally virtuous as 
the heathen ?" The answer to this question must necessarily 
depend upon another question, « who Paul means by deists ?"— 
I suppose by his liberal application of the term deist, that he 
means every one who cannot subscribe to the dogmas of his 
own creed ! If so, I answer in the affirmative, and yet it will 
not appear that both deists and heathens are destitute of sav~ 
ing grace ! If « the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath 
appeared unto all men," then both deists and heathens must 



28* 

have saving grace ! whether they have made good use of this 
grace or not, is quite another question ! 

" Has Amicus forgotten the ten Roman persecutions, and 
the millions of Christians that were murdered by the pious 
heathen r" Amicus has not forgotten that the heathens un- 
der some of the Roman emperors, persecuted the Christians, 
neither has he forgotten the more bloody persecutions of *» the 
pious" Christians against their fellow professors for thirteen or 
fourteen centuries ; but if I have ever read of any heathen 
nation or people who persecuted their fellow professors for a 
difference of opinion on religious subjects, I confess 1 have for- 
gotten it! — I believe it was left for the professors of Christian- 
ity to set the example of a people under the same faith, burning, 
gibbeting, and hanging their brethren, for a conscientious 
dissent from a creed of man's making ! ! And I further believe, 
that all these scandalous scenes were the legitimate fruit of the 
very doctrine now advocated by my opponent ; that " the Scrip- 
tures, without the immediate teaching of the Holy Spirit, are the 
supreme and only standard of faith and practice !" 

Now this doctrine is not only repugnant to the uniform tes- 
timony of the inspired writers — not only makes the Divine 
Being both cruel and unjust, but it effectually destroys the most 
prominent distinction between the old and new Covenants ! 
The old Covenant w r as an outward law, written on tables of 
stone, and made through the instrumentality of Moses. The 
new Covenant as described by the prophet Isaiah, and illus- 
trated by the Apostle, was « the Law of the Spirit" — *« the Law 
written in the heart" — f« an inward teacher 9 " — the Holy Spirit 
in the soul. Heb. viii. 10. <* And they shall all be taught cf 
God," saith our Lord. John vi. £5. This covenant was ratified 
and confirmed after the ascension of Christ, by the pouring out 
of the Holy Spirit! And this covenant can only be known to 
those who have been introduced into it by the same blessed 
means ! — They, and they only, who « are led by the Spirit of 
God, are his legitimate children !" All others are *« bastards," 
let their profession be what it may ! " If any man have not 
the spirit of Christ he is none of his." — This was the Apostle's 
doctrine, and however it may be opposed by the letter learned 
Scribes, and formal Pharisees of the present day, it will remain 
to be true to the end of time ! 

By those whose interest if is to keep the people in a servile 
subjection to them for instruction, this doctrine is generally re- 
jected ! The idea that men may be immediately instructed in 
the essentials of salvation, strikes at the root of a mercenary 
priesthood ! It effectually removes the plea for a learned corps 
of theologians ! and therefore the Scripture assertion, that 



285 

under the new covenant « they shall not (of necessity) teach 
every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying : 
know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the 
greatest," is to them the greatest of all heresies ! — The idea, 
that any man may " know the Lord," except through some 
external means, is to them a most impious one ! ! ! it puts the 
learned rabbis on a level with the humblest Christian, and if 
generally received, will as surely spoil their trade, as the doc- 
trine of the Apostle spoiled the trade of Demetrius, and the 
craftsmen at Ephesus! — Whoever adheres to this doctrine, 
must expect from them the title of " infidel," " spurious Chris- 
tian," or " deist !"— They will tell him, « He hath a devil and 
is mad" — so it was of old ! and so 1 suppose it will always be— 
« If they have called the master of the house Si'elzabub, how 
much more shall they call rhem of his household." Matt. x. 25. 

The Hindoos are charged by my opponent with « idolatry, the 
greatest of all abominations in the sight of God," and that 
consequently, they « shall all have their part in the lake that 
burnetii with fire and brimstone." — That " idolatry" is an 
abomination in the sight of God, is freelv admitted ; whether 
it be "the greatest of all abominations" in the view of divine 
purity, 1 will not undertake to decide, rhe text*' Paul" ij as 
partially qu'.ted, places it the seventh in the order of crimes^ that 
shall lead the wicked into thai lake! And" lying S' the eighth. 

The degree of criminality attached to any act, is however 
very immaterial, if such »ct be sufficient to separate the soul 
from the source of all true happiness. — 8ut it is very material 
that we should understand the true meaning of the terms we 
use, and 1 apprehend that there is hardly any one so vaguely 
used, so much misunderstood as the term idolatry ,- and I will 
venture to assert, that there is no nation on the face of the 
whole earth, who is more interested in ascertaining its true 
meaning, than the projessors oj Christianity are. — Many are so 
w?ak, as to think, that if they do not fall down to sticks and 
stones, they are wholly free from idolatry ! as if idolatry were 
merely an act of the body ; but this is fatal delusion ! a delusion 
that I fear is setting innumerable souls in a false rest; that is 
doing more injury to the interest of vital Christianity, than 
perhaps any other cause ! " God seeth not as man seeth, for 
man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh 
on the heart." 1 Sam. xvi. 7. With the heart devoted to God 
in sincerity, a man may worship his Creator through some out- 
ward representation, and yet be guiltless of idolatry in the 
sight of Him, who " looketh on the heart." — The Christian 
under the symbols of bread and wine may worship God without 
idolatry $ the Hindoos under the symbols of "Vishnu the pre- 



286 

server' ' or Brahma the creator, may adore the " One God, 
which the Veda teaches," equally innocent of that " greatest of 
all abominations ! ! !" What then, it may be asked, is idolatry ? 
I answer in the language of Scripture, " worshipping and serv- 
ing the creature more than the Creator, who is God blessed 
foreve " Rom, i 25. Loving any thing more than God is idola- 
try ! «* Covetousness." saith the Apostle, *♦ is idolatry. " Colos. 
iii. 5. •• riie works of f bib Mesu are idolatry." Gal, v. 20, — and 
the idolaters of whom J<rhn speaks, in the tex; quoted by my 
opponent, are they •* whose god is their belly, whose glory is 
their shame, who rmna earthly things." Philip, iii. 19. Now if 
this Oe toe true definition ot idolatry, who are greater idolaters 
than professing Christians from one extremity of Christendom 
to the other? If covetonsness be idolatry — and the Apostle 
declares positively that it is so, we need not go far to discover 
« this grearcst of all abominations in the sight of God;" 
"priests and people seem general!) infected with it; like a 
deadly gangreen it has spread through church and state, till 
the whole body presents to the religious observer the awful 
symptoms of general corruption. If we really believe the asser- 
tion of the Apostle that " covetousness is idolatry," and that all 
"idolaters shall have their part in the lake that burnetii with 
fire and brimstone," 1 know of no people who are more dis- 
tinctly called, bij the signs of the times, to avoid this horrible 
catastrophe, than the high professors of that religion, which 
was introduced by Him, who had *• not whereon to lay his head." 

To the character of the Hindoos, as an honest, hospitable, 
benevolent and amiable people, 1 could bring further proofs 
than those cont aincd in my last number ; even from the pens 
of those who have joined with interested men in vilifying them : 
Pinkerton, who paints his caricature of them in colours furnish- 
ed by Catholic and Protestant priests, is yet reluctantly forced 
to acknowledge, that M they are at present in general highly 
civilized, and of the most gentle and amiable manners." 

" Paul" endeavours to invalidate the testimony I adduced in 
favour of the Hindoo character, by saying, that " Abulfazel 
was a Mahometan," and the «* Bengal officer an avowed infi- 
del." — Now, if all this were granted, I cannot perceive that in 
matters of fact they ought not to be credited ! If no historical 
evidence were admitted, but that furnished by Christians, we" 
must reject nearly all ancient history ! Herodotus, Livy, Thu- 
cydides, Tacitus, Plutarch, and a hundred others must be wholly 
laid aside. Abulfazel, though a Mahometan, was a most learned 
and respectable author. « His Compendium of the Philosophy 
of the Hindoos" in the Ayeen Acbery, is quoted as authority by 
the best writers, and his statements respecting the Hindoo faith 



2S7 

and manners, is amply confirmed by the most creditable mo- 
dern travellers. As to the Bengal officer, his writings give 
the strongest evidence of his belief in the doctrines of genuine 
Christianity. It will puzzle my opponent to prove that he ever 
avowed himself an infidel — until *< Paul" give better evidence 
than mere assertion, we shall take the liberty to disbelieve 
him. 

There is, however, one trait in the character of my witnesses, 
which gives great weight to their testimony : they were disin- 
terested men ! it would have better served th» cause of detrac- 
tion espoused by my opponent, if his evidence bad been of this 
character* With a view to a bishopric. Buchanan was hetray- 
ed intojnany inaccuracies, his statements respecting the gene- 
ral moral character of the Hindoos are unworthy of credit. It 
is probable, that his anxiety for «» an Ecclesiastical establish- 
ment in British India/' led him into many errors, and induced 
him to take the character of these Hindoos, who had been cor- 
rupted by an intercourse with the British Christians, as a 
sample of the whole nation ; for it is notorious, that whenever 
the aborigines of any country have long had the manners and 
customs of the professors of Christianity to copy after, they 
become vicious — they degenerate from their original simplicity 
and moral excellence ! Of this truth, many striking examples 
might be adduced. 

" Their very gods are monsters of vice, says Mr. Ward." 
This is not the only instance of Ward's insincerity. — No one 
who is acquainted with the worship of the Hindoos, can be de- 
ceived by this assertion ; the characters of Bramah and 
Vishnu— the creative and upholding energies of the Deity, are 
by no means " monsters of vice." They believe in one Su- 
preme Being, the author, the preserver and governor of the 
world ; his attributes are described under various allegorical 
representations ; but the most enlightened Hindoos never lose 
sight of the fundamental doctrine of the unity of God. " The 
Pundits" declare, that « it was the Supreme Being, who, by his 
power, formed all creatures of the animal, vegetable and ma- 
terial world, to be an ornament to the magazine of creation ; and 
whose comprehensive benevolence, selected man the centre of 
knowledge, to have dominion and authority' over the rest, and 
having bestowed upon him judgment and understanding, gave 
him supremacy over the corners of the world." From the 
« Mahabarat," Wilkins has translated a short episode, en- 
titled « the Baghvat Geeta," which was " designed to esta- 
blish the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead, and from a just 
view of the Divine nature, to deduce an idea of that kind of 
worship most acceptable to a perfect being." (i Colonel Dow" 



288 

quotes a passage from one of the sacred books of the Hindoos* 
showing their sentiments concerning the Divine nature and per- 
fections : they say, 6i As God is immaterial, he is above all con- 
ception ; as he is invisible, he can have no form, but from what 
we behold of his works ; we may conclude, that he is eternal, 
omnipotent, knowing all things, and present every where." 
"Men capable of forming such ideas of the Deiry, must have 
perceived, that it was only by sanctity of heart and purity of 
manners, they could hope to gain the approbation of a being 
perfect in goodness." 

The misrepresentations of Ward are so gross, that they 
scarcely deserve a serious refutation : « Their scriptures," he 
says, « encourage pride, impurity, falsehood, and murder, and 
their heaven is a brothel." Unless my opponent can give ex- 
tracts from their scriptures to support these charges, I shall 
consider Ward as a wilful calumniator, and " Paul" as an 
« accessary after the fact." I can give large quotations from 
"the Veda," which goto prove that their scriptures encourage 
humility, purity, truth, arid the most sublime benevolence, not only 
to their friends and neighbours, but even to their enemies ! and 
also that their heaven is a place of pure and spiritual enjoy- 
ment ! But Ward's character has been rendered so suspicious 
by his recent conduct in India, that I admire my opponent 
should venture to rely on such « a broken reed" for any sup- 
port to his views respecting the Hindoos ! ! ! 

The Abbe Dubois, a Roman Catholic priest — an interested 
witness — can hardly be viewed in a better light. His state- 
ments, that the Hindoos have " little respect for parental au- 
thority, and little filial affection," are libels on their character, 
and may be easily refuted by authentic documents. — When he 
says, that « falsehood and perjury are considered virtuous, when 
they tend to our own advantage," he is rather depicting his own 
character, than the character of the people he professes to de- 
scribe ! It is hardly too much to say, that there is scarcely a 
people further removed from these crimes than the natives of 
Hindostan ! ! His other statements are equally inconsistent with 
the best established facts! — As to " Paul's" quotations from 
the il missionaries," I beg leave to consider them useless in 
the present discussion ; it is a maxim pretty well established, 
that when a witness has any interest at stake in the decision of a 
question, he is incompetent ! They are too deeply interested in the 
present case to be admitted as evidence. 

I have been amused at modern missionary ingenuity in the 
pursuit of money: there has certainly been nothing like it ex- 
hibited since the suppression of the Begging Friars ; and a 
very prominent feature of their scheme, is to represent foreign 



2S» 

nations as in the lowest state of moral degradation and wretch- 
edness ; nations whose greatest miseries have arisen from their 
intercourse with the professors of Christianity. For this pur- 
pose they have sent out innumerable pamphlets, pictures, bal- 
lads, sermons, and tales, cale<<lat<'d to work upon the benevo- 
lent affections, and aii containing pathetic appeals to the 
PURSE ! ! — The country has been inundated by spiritual men- 
dicants, wi f h every variety of pretext, for raising money, with 
every species of argument to prove, that without money the 
world must everlastingly perish, and the Church of Christ be 
totally annihilated. In a publication lately made in one of the 
eastern states, a certain zealot in this cause, has undertaken 
to show how many millions of dollars it will take to " evan- 
gelize the world," and how reasonable it would be for the in- 
habitants of America and Europe to supply the enormous sunu 
The whole amount demanded by this modest missionary, may 
be estimated by the sum to be raised in the United States, which 
is only seven hundred and forty-eight millions three hundred and 
twenty-three thousand dollars i ! a sum which I suppose, at a mo- 
derate calculation, must be seven times as much as the whole 
specie in the territory of the Union ! ! ! 

I said I had been amused at missionary ingenuity— it is true, 
the folly and extravagance of these men have sometimes ex- 
cited a smile — but on the whole, their conduct has excited the 
most painful reflections. It is calculated to produce on the pub- 
lic mind a most unfavourable impression respecting the nature 
and genius of that blessed religion, which was introduced and 
propagated by our Lord and his disinterested Apostles ! It is 
calculated to produce a belief, that the divine nature and pow r - 
erful spirit of the Gospel, is utterly insufficient to effect the 
great purpose of the Deity, without the aid of a mercenary set 
of men — men, as different in character from the primitive min- 
isters of the church, as the character of Simon Magus was 
different from that of the Apostle Paul ! si I have coveted no 
man's silver or gold," said the Apostle ! Modern missionaries 
covet every man's silver and gold ! « These hands," said he 9 
" have ministered to my own necessities and to those that were 
with me." Our modern apostles depend entirely on the la- 
bours of others, and demand millions besides to aid them in 
their work ! ! ! — Ministers made by men must be supported by 
men — and ministers thus made and supported, have in all ages 
of the church, been stumbling blocks in the way of honest in- 
quirers after divine Truth. AMICUS, 



390 

Saturday, May 25, 1822, 

LETTER XXVII. 

ON MINISTERIAL SUPPORT, 

This controversy, if it has had no other, has had already 
one good effect. It has opened the eves of the community to 
the danger of your doctrines. Many persons, who at the com- 
mencement of this discussion were prepossessed in favour of 
your society, have expressed themselves surprised and asto- 
nished at the doctrines you avow. And I am persuaded the more 
your sentiments are known, the more will Christians be con- 
vinced your system is fundamentally erroneous. Between you 
and us there is a great gulf fixed, which forever forbids our 
union in this world, if not in the next. Whenever you will give 
us your ideas of the Trinity, I think Christians will be con- 
vinced you worship a different God. 

On the subject of '« internal light," w 7 e might employ the 
year round, but I again offer to rest where we are, and proceed 
to the subject of the Trinity. After you have openiy prefer- 
red the religion of the Hindoos and of our western Indians, 
to Christianity ; — after you have denied the worship of Vishnu 
and Brahma to be idolatry ;— after you have allowed the deists 
to have « saving grace ;" — after you have said "the religion of 
Christendom is falsely called the Christian religion," — and that 
"the heathen have always been made worse by the professors 
of Christianity," — the public will need no farther justification 
of all the charges I have brought against you, nor doubt your 
partiality for heathenism, and hostility to the religion of Jesus 
Christ. I think I have clearly proved that your doctrine of 
« internal light," is an « ignis fatuus" in point of delusion, — a 
deadly poison to the spirit of Missions, and a deceitful sup- 
planter of the Scriptures of truth. 

On the subject of the Trinity, I have frequently and with 
sufficient fulness expressed my sentiments, and now wait for 
yours. Besides, the doctrine of Trinitarians is clearly and fully 
stated in all their Confessions of Faith ; but with regard to your 
sentiments, your writers and preachers say nothing, or only 
just enough to testify your rejection of the commonly received 
doctrine. What your general sentiments on this subject are, is 
evident from the silence of your Catechism and Apologies ; and 
from the late declaration of 6( Amicus," when speaking of the 
disputes between the Arians and Trinitarians of primitive times, 
he says : "one believed in the Unity ot God, the other thought 
the Deity was composed of parts ! /" No. 2, Chris. Rep. 1822. 
No candid reader will doubt, and I challenge « Amicus," to 



291 

&eny 9 that by the latter expression he meant to condemn and 
stigmatize the doctrine of the Trinity, — of course he sides with 
the Arians! .... If I am mistaken, explain yourselves, satisfy 
the public on this subject. 

While waiting for your sentiments on the subject of the Tri- 
nity, I will by way of episode, notice another hobby of yours, 
that of ministerial support. 

It is impossible to hear many of your sermons, or read many 
pages of your books, without being struck with your indiscrimi- 
nate opposition to all ministers of the Gospel who are not of your 
own society. Your chief objections to other societies seem to 
centre in their ministers ; and such is your « charity" for the 
ministers of other persuasions, that none of your members can 
attend their preaching but on peril of your high displeasure* 
The chief objection brought against the preachers of other 
denominations, is that they receive a regular pecuniary support 
from the people, to whom they minister. On this subject I sub- 
mit the following considerations : 

1. Ministers cannot live on air. They are "men of like pas- 
sions" and necessities with other people. They cannot well do 
without food and raiment, and lodging for themselves and fami- 
lies. Now, for these temporal wants they must themselves pro- 
vide, or others must provide for them. 

2. They ought not to be necessitated to provide for them- 
selves, as such employment will always interfere with that 
work, which ought to employ all their time. True, if they never 
trouble themselves about the flock, except on the sabbath ; if 
they bestow no other labour on their people, than simply to 
rise in meeting once in a while, and talk at random for an hour 
or two; if they make no sacrifices for the church, and for six 
days in the w r eek are wholly engaged in their own temporal 
concerns, reason says they have no claim to support. But if, like 
David, they will not *« serve God with that which cost them 
naught ;" if they labour in the word and doctrine, are instant 
in season and out of season, preaching the word ; — if as good 
shepherds they are employed in watching the flock,— as stewards 
distributing bread to the household, — as watchmen guarding 
the walls of Zion ; if they visit the sick and the inquiring, go 
into the highways and hedges to compel people to come to the 
Gospel feast; in short, if they « do the work of an Evangelist 
and make full proof of their ministry," they will have labour 
and care enough without the care of a store or farm upon their 
shoulders. 

3. The Apostles refused having any thing to do with the 
temporal concerns even of the church. « It is not reason, that we 
should leave the word of God and serve tables* We will give 



292 



mr selves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word* 99 
Acts vi. 4. And Paul exhorts Timothy, "Meditate upon these 
things, give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear 
unto" all," 1 Tim. iv. 15. The work of the ministry is as im- 
portant and as arduous now as eighteen hundred years ago. 
.But ministers cannot now, an) more than in primitive times, 
*<give themselves wholly" to these things, «» be continually in 
prayer and the ministry of the word," unless their temporal 
necessities are supplied by others, and they are relieved from 
worldly cares. Therefore they ought to be supported. 

4. God commanded the old Testament church to support their 
ministers* therefore it is the dut) pjf the church, now to sup- 
port her ministry, Num. xviii, 20, 24 The ministers uf religion 
under the Mosaic dispensation were to be entirely devoted to the 
ministry, and to be entirely supported by the people. The Le- 
Tites had no inheritance with the other tribes, but only forty 
eight cities for their habitation ; they were to have no landed 
property, except a few acres about their cities for their gardens 
and cattle, and were to iieve on the contributions of the people, 
Num. xxxv. 2, 3. The Israelites were commanded not to for- 
sake them. " Take heed that thou forsake not the Levite so 
long as thou shalt live upon the earth," Deut. xii. 19. In the 
days of Nehemiah, the Levites being neglected, had to resort to 
other labours for their support, for which the people were 
reproved, Neh. xiii. 10. «* And I perceived that the portions of 
the Levites had not been given them, for the Levites had fled 
every one to his field; then contended I with the rulers, and 
said: Why is the house of Godforsaken? Then brought aH 
Judah the tithes. &c." Now, though the letter of these laws is 
repealed, the spirit is stil! binding I do not say it is the duty 
of the spiritual Israel to give the same amount or the same pro- 
portion, but it is still their duty to support the ministry. The 
church is still obligated so to provide for its ministers, that they 
may not be compelled to "go into the field" to procure bread, 
but may " give themselves wholly" to their appropriate work. 
But lest you should say, it is unfair to reason from the Law to 
the Gospel, I observe, 

b. I only follow Apostolic example. In the 9th chapter 1st 
Corinthians, the Apostle pleads Wis right tu a temporal support, 
in a way that nogainsayer can resist. ♦* Say I these things as 
a man, or saith the Law the same also? For it is written in the 
Law of Moses : Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out 
the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it alto- 
gether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written, 
that he that plougheth should plough in hope. If we have sown 
unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap 



293 

your carnal things ? Do ye not know, that they which minister 
about holy tilings, live of the things of the temple ? and they 
which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar: Even so 
hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should 
live of the Gospel,'' 1 Car. ix. 8, 18. In these verses, it is evi<Wit, 
that the Apostle reasons from the Law to the Gospel, or from the 
Mosaic to the Christian dispensation, and inters that as they 
who ministered at the altar, lived by the altar, so they wh<> 
preach the Gospel, should live by the Gospel, lii other words, 
they should be " wholly given" to the service of the sanctuary, 
and be " wholly supported" by the offerings of the sanctuary. 

6. Our Lord positively forbade his Apostles to make the teast 
provision for their temporal support, Matt. x. 9, to\ " Provide 
neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for 
your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor yet staves." — 
Why ? — " For the workman is worthy of his meat" Here we are 
taught two things : first, that ministers ought to be intent only 
on the work of the ministry, not providing in the ieast for their 
temporal support ; and secondly, that the people for whom they 
" work," are obligated to give them "meat," or proper main- 
tenance. The argument needs no application. 

7. The common sense of all denominations has led them to 
devise the means of supporting the ministry. There is not a 
church in Christendom, however it may cry out against "sala- 
ries" and " hirelings," but always feels itself bound in common 
justice to defray the expences of those, who serve them in spi- 
ritual as well as in secular things. It is perfectly unreasonable 
to expect a man to " go a warfare at his own charges ; — or to 
plant a vineyard and not eat the fruit thereof ; — or to feed a 
flock and not eat the milk of the flock," 1 Cor. ix. 7. Those 
churches, if there be any such, who require from their minis- 
ters no sacrifices, either of time or labour, — which have no 
wish that "the priest's lips should keep knowledge," or that he 
who attempts to edify the church should "study to be a work- 
man that needeth not to be ashamed," — who feel no concern, 
that he should « rightly divide the word of truth, and give to 
each his portion in due season," — w 7 ho are willing to be served 
with that which "cost him naught," — and who resemble those 
parents, that care not what teacher their children have, pro- 
vided he « works cheap," — are consistent with themselves in 
giving nothing to the ministry, — but whether in indulging such 
covetousness, or in being contented with such a ministry, they 
realh promote their own interest is another question. 

8. Your own doctrine justifies our conduct. Jesse Kersey, in 
his Treatise, says : "As it was the duty of the church in pri- 
mitive times to give to the poor amongst them ; so we believe 



294* 

we are also in duty bound to provide for our poor as well minis* 
ters as others." p. Z7. 

Barclay in his Apology, says : "we freely acknowledge that 
thvre U an obligation upon those to whom God sends, or among 
whorfi he raisetii up a minister, if need be that they minister to 
his necessities. Secondly, that it is lawful for him, to receive 
what is necessary and convenient. That which we oppose in 
this matter is, First, that it should be constrained and limited. 
Secondly, that it should be superfluous, chargeable and sumptu- 
ous. Thirdly, the manifest abuse thereof, &c." Ap. p. 342. As 
to '« constraining" a salary, I know of no such practice in this 
country, or if it exist it would find no friend in me. As to a 
«« superfluous and sumptuous" salary, it is neither to be expect- 
ed nor demanded. And as to the « abuse 1 * of this or any other 
privilege, it is wrong to offer it as an argument against the thing 
itself. " 

Lastly ; Your own practice ought to teach you more charity 
on this subject. You will not deny that the expences of your 
preachers are defrayed ; and when they have a family to sup- 
port, find feel themselves 6 * moved" to travel and visit the 
churches, you feel yourselves hound to pay not only their per- 
sonal expences, but to contribute sufficient foi the maintenance 
of their family. I do not blame you for this. To do less would 
be a sin against common honesty, would be as unchristian and 
unjust as to take money from a poor preacher's pocket, when 
he was poor and you were rich. But I blame you for condemn- 
ing others, for doing that, which you do yourselves. Your 

PREACHERS NEVER SUFFER FOR WANT OF TEMPORAL SUPPORT. 

Among those denominations whom you condemn for paying 
salaries, nine out of ten of the ministers are in a temporal point 
of view, continual sufferers. A poor preacher, who should come 
down from Philadelphia to Wilmington, to perform a labour of 
love among you, even though he should not utter one word, 
would probably receive double the compensation from your 
society, that a preacher of any other denomination would re- 
ceive from his society for similar services. And yet you are 
continually exclaiming against "hirelings," "salary men," 
"dark letter-learned clergy," "mercenary priesthood,"— in 
reference to men who, to say the least, are as free from covet- 
ousness, have as much disinterested love for souls, and are as 
willing to spend and be spent, as any preachers of your deno- 
mination. 

PAUL. 



295 

Seveniffdav, 6th mo. 1, la^2. 

LETTER XXVIII. 

One of the early charges brought against us by our moder. 
" Paul," is, that we " dishonour the Scriptures." I thi 
every candid reader of the essays of Amicus will by this tistye 
perceive the fallacy of this charge. Happily for the so 
whose views I advocate, its doctrines, its ministry, its v 
testimonies are so perfectly in accordance with the sen' 
of the inspired penmen, that our distinguishing peeulia ities as 
well as those truths which we hold in common with oth' hrifik 
tians, are not only supported by the general tenor ar pirit of 
the Holy Scriptures, but by the most lucid, the most pes 
Scripture texts. Amicus, in support of these test! 
been careful in the present discussion always to re/ 
cred records. The great mass of authorities v 
quoted from this source, remains unanswered by ir ; jonent — » 
and I will venture to say, must ever remain unr To 

the Holy Scriptures we refer for the support an nation 

of even tenet that we hold; and by their clear oca! 

testimony, we are willing they should stand or fall reli- 

gion is the religion of Christ and his Apostles, 
absurd and awkward appendages with which 
superstition have shrouded it in the night c and 

apostacy, from « the faith once delivered to t 

Now, I know of no set of men who so mu 
Scriptures as my opponent and his adherents. rbeir general 
practice exhibits little less than a constant s 
to the Scriptures ! What is the language the ; creed prock i 
to the world? Does it not say, that the hoi in- 

competent to express the ideas communicated by Divine Inspi- 
ration — and that the language of the Bible is so obscure that it 
cannot be understood, without the aid of a company of priests? 
And what better language do their Catechisms and Confessions 
of Faith hold out to the world ? Do they our 

Lord and his Apostles were too ignorant to cot? their 

ministry and writings, a clear idea of tr- 1 truth; thej wished 
to communicate? And therefore, that it w% at a 

set of theologians should, by the introduction of heathenish :rms 
and new fangled words, help them to express their meaning! !! 
Now, if these proceedings do not <* dishonour the Scriptures," 
I confess I do not understand how they can be dishonoured ! 

To reject the Scriptures altogether, would not throw a thou- 
sandth part of the dishonour upon them that priestcraft has 
done ! The man who should declare his disbelief in the Bible, 
would tell us that such was the dark and prejudiced state of 



206 

hi3 own mind, it could not be convinced by the most demonstra- 
tive evidence; and I cannot perceive that he would thus throw 
any more dishonour on the Scriptures, than he would throw on 
the philosophy of Newton, by telling us that he did not believe 
that the world was round! But for the professed friends of the 
Scriptures to tell us, that the Scripture-writers were too igno- 
rant clearly to express their meaning, is to do all they can to 
dishonour them ! 

The mischief that has been done to the cause of Christianity, 
by the officious conduct of these men, is incalculable. It was 
a powerful means of involving the church in Cimmerian dark- 
ness — in a deep and deadly apostacy from the true and living 
faith ; an apostacy from which she has yet but very partially 
recovered ! It was a means of introducing her into those scan- 
dalous scenes of war, bloodshed, persecution and bigotry, which 
have turned away more souls from Christ, than all her avowed 
enemies, by a thousand fold ! 

And what have the creeds, adopted by the churches since the 
reformation, done for the cause of Christianity ? — No man, who 
is tolerabb well versed in the history of the church, for the 
two last centuries, can be at a moment's loss to answer! They 
have made more dissention and schism, than will be healed for 
ages ! They have made more infidels than Hobbes, Hume, 
Paine, and all the host of deistical writers, and their adherents, 
put together ! ! ! The introduction of the two words " Trinity" 
and •« Sacrament," the former of theological invention, the lat- 
ter the name of a Romish military oath 9 has produced more mis- 
chief, more jangling, more discord, than any other single 
cause ! — And all this is done by the professed friends of the 
Scriptures ! ! ! By those, who tell us that " the Bible is the su- 
preme and only standard of faith and practice /" 

Now I appeal to the sober sense of my readers, of every reli- 
gious denomination, if there can be any conduct more inconsis- 
tent, more absurd, more mischievous, than this is ? 

I think it must now be evident, that however my opponent 
may profess to venerate the Scriptures, he dishonours them in 
practice. If I be not mistaken, his conduct and temper are as 
unlike the candid, benevolent, amiable, and affectionate spirit 
of the Evangelists and Apostles, as his doctrine is inimical to 
theirs ! Not content with consigning three-fourths of the hu- 
man family to everlasting destruction without a crime — in his 
last number, he has assumed the seat of Abraham, and fixed a 
great gulf between himself and a large community of Chris- 
tians, « which forever forbids our union in this world, if not in 
the next." The plain meaning of which is, that if there be no 
future state of purgatory, we can never come together in any 



297 

world ! And as he has placed himself on the happy side of this 
gulf, we must all go with Dives into eternal perdition ! ! » What 
a notable spirit of charity does this champion of Calvinism ex- 
hibit to the world ! 

Now, with such tempers and opinions as these, I think (on our 
own account) we need not be much afflicted if we never come 
together— with notions so gloomy, and doctrines so unscriptu- 
ral, I believe his company would tend to damp the enjoyment 
of his companions in any state ! I sincerely wish him the bless- 
ing of a little more " internal light." 

I would, before 1 proceed further, wish explicitly to state, 
that in exposing the absurdity and inconsistency of my oppo- 
nent's doctrine, I do not intend to cast any reflection on the re- 
ligious society of which he is a member. I have the pleasure 
of being intimately acquainted with a number of that religious 
community, who abhor the doctrine of* 4 Paul" as much as I do ; 
and I fully believe, that a large proportion of them are too en- 
lightened to feel any gratitude for his public appearances in the 
present discussion. I know that many of their most respecta- 
hle members, entirely disapprove his sentiments. The march 
of truth, though slow, is certain — it must prevail, and will pre- 
vail. The doctrines advanced by Amicus, I believe, are Scrip- 
tural ; if they he so, they will correspond w r ith the impressions 
of truth in every mind ; they will accord with the discoveries 
of that Divine « internal light that lighteth every man that 
eometh into the world ;" which, as it is yielded to, will remove 
every prejudice, and fill up that « gulf" which « Paul" would 
"jix" between us. 

I will now notice a few of my opponent's remarks in his last 
number : « You," says he, " have openly preferred the reli- 
gion of the Hindoos, and the western Indians, to Christianity." 
If my readers would see how untrue, how uucandid is this as- 
sertion. I would wish them to consult the preceding numbers of 
Amicus ! — I referred to the Hindoos and Indians of America, 
merely to show, that their moral character and religious senti- 
ments, gave proof, that God had not left himself without a wit- 
ness in the hearts of those people ; but that, according to the 
Apostle's assertion, " the grace of God that bringeth salvation 
hath appeared to all men." This was the w holer drift of my 
argument, and not to prove that the religion of the Hindoos 
and western Indians was preferable to Christianity. I had pre- 
pared myself with authentic documents, to illustrate and con- 
firm my views, which, as " Paul" has abandoned the subject, 
need not now be presented to the public, but which may here- 
after enrich the columns of the «' Repository," and will fur- 
nish a rich feast to all who delight to see the evidences of the 
38 



298 

love and mercy of our adorable Creator, through Christ Jesus 
our Lord, to his rational family ! 

is Christianity," stripped of the extraneous matter, which, 
in the dark ages, has been attached to it, by politic priests and 
< ( interested" men, is the pure truth, to whieh nothing can be 
preferable ! — It is " undefined religion" in all its native loveli- 
ness ! — It is the love of God manifested to man !— It is the Holy 
Spirit, working in him all amiable tempers and holy disposi- 
tions !— It is the pearl of great price, for which the spiritual 
merchantman is willing to sell all, that he may buy it. — It is, 
in fine, a religion as different from the noisy, pompous, fashion- 
able religion of the present day, as the religion of Christ was 
differenl from the religion of the Scribes and Pharisees. 

Again, says my opponent, " You have denied the worship of 
Vishnu and Bramali to be idolatry." Can any thing be fur- 
ther removed from the truth than this assertion? Where have 
I denied the worship of these to be idolatry ? I have no more 
denied such worship to be idolatry, than I have denied the wor- 
ship of bread and wine to be idolatry. I have truly admitted, 
that the sincere devoted soul may worship the one true God, 
tinder either of those symbols, without idolatry ; but 1 have ne- 
ver said, that the worship either of Vishnu or Bramah, bread 
or wine, is not idolatry ! 

Again ; 6t You have allowed the deist to have saving grace." 
True, I have — and I have shown that where there is no such 
grace, there can be no such thing as sinning against it. I am 
ignorant of any divine grace that is not » saving grace." All 
God's grace, or manifestation of his Holy Spirit, is saving in its 
very nature : and the Apostle tells us, that " the grace of God 
that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men." The only 
reason why all men are not saved by it, is, that they will not 
obey it. — « He that doeth evil," and loves to do evil, (i hateth 
the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should 
be reproved." My opponent's doctrine of unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation, is the most severe reflection on the justice, 
goodness and mercy of God, that ever was made by the vilest 
blasphemer ! 

Again ; « You have said the religion of Christendom is false- 
ly called the Christian religion." To this charge I must plead 
« guilty :" And if my opponent can prove that a swearing, 
fighting, formal, carnal religion, is the « Christian religion," 
thftn. I will confess that I have been mistaken in my estimate of 
" the religion of Christendom." 

And, « you have said that the heathen have always been 
made worse by the professors of Christianity." I have said 
no such thing ! So saying, I should have reflected upon the ho- 



299 

uoured memory of the "good William Penn," and his brethren, 
as well as on other disinterested Christians, who have from the 
purest motives, and in Gospel love, laboured for the good of the 
heathens, which I should be sorry to do. But Amicus did say, 
that " whenever the aborigines of any country, have long had 
the manners and customs of the professors of Christianity to 
copy after, they have become vicious, and degenerated from 
their original simplicity and moral excellence." And I appeal 
to the history of every European settlement of any standing, 
for the truth of the assertion. Amicus is prepared to prove 
his position, if «• Paul" dares to deny it ! 

My opponent thinks he has clearly proved, that our doctrine 
of " internal light" is an ignis fatuus in point of delusion. 
Now, I think, that if he has proved any thing, he has proved 
that himself is involved in great " internal darkness," In- 
deed, the whole scope of his addresses to us seems to be in ac- 
cordance with this idea! 

But « our doctrine is a deadly poison to the spirit of mis- 
sions." Now, what are we to understand by the spirit of mis- 
sions? If by it we are to understand the spirit of making 
money by a professed zeal for missions ; then, I suppose, we 
must admit that our doctrine is a deadly poison to this spirit ! 
It is a poison to Simony in all its forms. Wherever moneij is 
introduced into the church as a compensation for religious service, 
there the spirit or Simon Magus has come again from his 
place! A spirit that was severely rebuked by the Apostle, on 
its first appearance in the church ; a spirit that is contrary to 
every precept and example of the primitive believers — Simon 
the sorcerer excepted ! 

I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the so- 
ciety of Friends are inimical to missions under the direction 
of the Great Head of the church. That society has, perhaps, 
more missionaries abroad, than any other society of Christians: 
if we accept the word «« missionary" to mean those who travel 
abroad in the ministry of the Gospel. Ever since its first ap- 
pearance as a society, its ministers have been remarkable for 
their indefatigable zeal in propagating their views of Divine 
truth. No human laws could ever prevent them from endea- 
vouring to labour in the Gospel of Christ — no persecution could 
deter them — they have encountered every difficulty, they have 
made every sacrifice in the performance of their religious duty 
in this respect, as the annals of Great Britain and our New- 
England colonies will abundantly testify. And they have ever 
preached " without money and without price." 

The next observation of " Paujl" that I shall notice, is the 
following : " It is impossible to hear many of your sermons, or 



300 

read many pages in your books, without being struck with your 
indiscriminate opposition to all ministers of the Gospel who are 
not of your society." In this case, my opponent manifests 
either a want of candor or discrimination ; our testimony is di- 
rected not. against any Gospel minister I It is levelled at a mer- 
cenary ministry! It is against Simony in the true sense of the 
word. It is against one of the most disgraceful, the most in- 
jurious practices to the cause of Christianity, that was ever 
introduced into the church. 

Let us now see how my opponent defends this practices-— 
« Ministets," says he, " cannot live on air." Now, who wants 
them to live on air? I am sure the society, whose principles I 
advocate, never taught that ministers should "live on air!" 
Our ministers do not " live on air !" They have, like the Apos- 
tle, lived by their labour and industry ; and, like him, have been 
willing to spend and be spent for the love of Christ and the 
salvation of souls. They have demonstrated to the world, as 
the Apostle did to the primitive church, that all the arguments 
in favour of a mercenary priesthood, have no foundation in rea- 
son, or the nature of things ! 

The idea, that " ministers ought not to be necessitated to 
provide for themselves, as such employment will always inter- 
fere with that work which ought to employ all their time," is 
deeply founded in delusion. It is contradicted by the practice 
and experience of the Apostles, and thousands since their time. 
It is the weak and defenceless refuge of those who i6 cannot 
dig," are determined not to work, and are not « ashamed to 
beg." Was not the Apostle Paul as faithful and laborious a 
minister of Christ, as any of our modern priests ? Did he not 
spend as much time in the service of the Gospel as any of 
them ? And yet, did he not follow his trade, whereby he not 
only supported himself, but had a surplus to « minister to the 
necessities of them that were with him ?" « Facts are stub- 
born things," "Paui*!" Now, are the professed ministers of 
Christ, in the present day, entitled to higher privileges than the 
Apostles ? They «« who talk at random for an hour or two, once 
or twice in a week," may claim them, but I doubt that neither 
the Scriptures nor reason will grant them ! 

In the dark night of apostacy from the doctrine and prac- 
tice of the primitive church, among other baneful errors, an 
idea was admitted that labour was incompatible with religious 
contemplation, or Divine enjoyment. Now the very reverse 
of this is true. There is no state more friendly to the growth 
of religion in the soul, than that of honest, moderate labour! 
Whilst the hands are employed in useful occupation, all the 
morbid consequences of idleness are prevented — the passions 



301 

are subdued — and the soul possesses the most enviable degree 
of liberty, to expatiate on the things of God — to commune with 
the author of her existence — to *< fiii her urn" with the waters 
of salvation, and to be prepared to distribute to others the 
" grace that has been given her, according to the measure of 
the gift of Christ," Eph iv. 7. So far is useful employment in 
secular concerns, from * 4 interfering" with the work of an Evan- 
gelist, that it is one of the best means in the hand of Provi- 
dence, to prepare the mind for religious usefulness ! For the 
truth of this position, I appeal to the experience of all the liv- 
ing members of the church of Christ, of every religious de- 
nomination ! 

But, says " Paul," the « Apostles refused to have any thing 
to do with the temporal concerns even of the church." What a 
miserable refuge is this ! Because the Apostles refused 6i to serve 
tables," therefore they refused to provide for their own wants ! 
Because they refused to be caterers for the multitude, therefore 
they did not eat the fruit of their own labour ! What strange 
reasoning is this! It however serves to show one thing — the 
weakness of the cause it is intended to support ! The Scriptures 
give us no idea that a pecuniary maintenance was ever provided 
for a minister of Christ ! 1 1 

My opponent's argument, drawn from the Old Testament, 
where he says, «* God commanded the Old Testament church 
to support their ministers, therefore it is the duty of the 
church now to support her ministry," rather proves his pre- 
paration for a bishopric in the established church in England, 
than any thing else ! If this argument has any weight as to the 
matter of it, it must have equal weight as to the manner of it. 
And so our modern apostles would take the tythes of our corn, 
and pigs, and chickens, and eggs ! ! ! Such reasoning as this, 
has always been used, to show the propriety of a forced main- 
tenance for the clergy ! A kind of maintenance they have al- 
ways used, and still use, wherever the civil authorities of any 
country have supported their claims ! 

To several other arguments of my opponent, which my li- 
mits prevent me from noticing at present, I shall reply to in my 
next — if the Lord permit. AMICUS. 



302 

Saturday, June 8, 1822. 

LETTER XXVIII. 

ON THE TRINITY, 

" There are Three that hear record in Heaven, the Father, the 
Word and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One." 1 John v. 7. 

There are certain doctrines of which an Apostle has said, 
" If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house, neither bid him God speed : for he 
that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds," 
2 John 10. It is not a matter of indifference, therefore, what a 
man preaches, or what he believes. « If any man preach any 
other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be 
accursed." Gal. i. 6. There are certain doctrines, therefore, 
which it is no « charity" to tolerate ; unless it be charity to 
disobey God and ruin immortal souls. While Christians may 
and ought to tolerate minor differences of taste in the super- 
structure of their spiritual building, they may not tolerate differ- 
ence of foundation. For « other foundation can no man lay 
than that is Jaid, which is Jesus Christ." It is genuine charity 
to condemn those who would subvert the fundamental principles 
of Christianity; as much so as to warn your fellow-creatures 
against a fountain which has been poisoned. 

Now if there be a single doctrine, which is vitally essential 
to the Christian system, it is the doctrine of the Trinity, — 
the doctrine that 6i in the unity of the Godhead there are Three 
Divine Persons, the same in substance, equal in power, eternity 
and glory." This doctrine is peculiar to Christianity and per- 
vades revelation in every part. Upon it the whole plan of sal- 
vation is built. Without it we cannot conceive of the Father 
loving the world and sending his co-equal Son to die for sin- 
ners ; — without it, we cannot understand how the Son could 
have left the hosom of the Father and the glory which he had 
with Him before the world was, to tabernacle with men, and 
make atonement to the Father for the sins of the world ; — and 
without this, we could never comprehend how the Spirit, a 
third agent, should lead sinners through the Son to the Father. 
Take away this doctrine, and the Gospel has absolutely no 
foundation. It is " the baseless fabric of a vision," — the delusive 
enchantment of a dream ttiat cannot possibly be realized. 
Every system of doctrine, every Confession of Faith, Catechism 
or creed, that does not lay this down as a fundamental rock, is 
falsely called " the Gospel," and is built upon the sand. Hence 
Christians in every age have guarded this doctrine as they 



SOB 

would the apple of their eye ; and when compelled by heretics 
to make a creed, have always placed the doctrine of the Trinity 
in front. And in every age they who acted otherwise, who 
neglected to make a full statement of their sentiments on this head, 
have always been suspected of fundamental errors and preach- 
ing "another Gospel." The church has a right to know the 
doctrines of her members ; and the church at large to know 
the doctrines of every denomination that claims to be a consti- 
tuent part. Hence the propriety of creeds. No society, whether 
religious or not, which attaches the least importance to itself, 
will admit a member until he gives unequivocal evidence of 
his agreement with them in the fundamental principles of the 
institution. The least hesitation, equivocation, or shyness in 
answering plain and reasonable questions, is always deemed 
ground for suspicion and rejection. While the safety or pros- 
perity of the body depends on his agreement with them in 
essential points, if he shows a disposition to conceal his senti- 
ments, to waive the subject, or refuses to give full satisfaction, 
he is regarded as a spy and a traitor. And all this for the best 
reason in the w 7 orld, because if he agrees with them, he will 
rejoice to profess such agreement, and there can be no motive 
to concealment, but a consciousness of evil. When a sentry, 
upon whose fidelity depends the life of thousands, challenges 
a person drawing near the camp, it is most reasonable that 
the person challenged should give the watch-word, or be kept 
at a distance. If he be a friend, he will answer at once; if he 
remain silent, or attempts to equivocate, there is something 
wrong. 

Now since the days of your founder, the Christian church 
has ever been challenging your doctrines on the subject of the 
God you worship; — and since the days of your founder, you 
have generally maintained a suspicious silence ! If from time 
to time you have set forth some apology, catechism or vindi- 
cation, while you have been abundantly full on points of little 
consequence, you have been obstinately silent as to the main 
thing. Until you give more satisfactory evidence, that you are 
really on the side of Christ and the Gospel, faithful watchmen 
on the walls of Zion will keep you at a distance, and regard 
you as the enemies of Christ and his cause. If you ask the 
reason of our scrutiny — you find it in the divine command to 
«< try your spirit, whether you are of God ;" to examine whether 
you « bring the doctrine of Christ," before we bid you God 
speed ; and to know whether you preach " another Gospel," 
before we acknowledge you as servants of Christ. And "how 
can two walk together unless they be agreed" in the fundamental 
points. Now, 



304 

First : The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental point. 
And upon this we have a right to know your sentiments before 
we acknowledge you as Christians. l 1 hat it is a fundamental 
point is evident. 

1. From the arguments produced in my XlVth Letter, to 
which for the sake of brevity, the reader is referred. 

2. From the unanimous sentiments of the primitive church. 
On this subject I would refer "Amicus" to a small volume now 
in his hands; to wit: "Miller's Letters on UrAtarianism" in 
which he will find a detail of facts, and an exhibition of quota- 
tions from Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, 
Theophil'is, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, 
demonstrating that the doctrine of the Trinity was not only 
held by the early Christians, but held as essential or fundamental 
to Christianity. Letter iv. 

3. That this doctrine is viewed as fundamental, is evident 
from the unanimous concurrence of all the Creeds in Christendom, 
Not a single Confession of Faith can be mentioned, in which the 
doctrine of the Trinity is not recognized, and not only recog- 
nized, but set in the very van of the phalanx of truth. It is un- 
necessary to make particular quotations, until you will dare to 
contradict a fact so universally acknowledged. Barclay's Apo- 
logy and Catechism, for their silence on this subject stand alone, 
and for that silence have always been suspected of some secret 
rottenness by the Christian community. Upon this subject, as 
on the great doctrine of Atonement, which depends upon the Tri- 
nity, he observes a silence, which is irreconcilable with Chris- 
tian frankness and honest dealing. 

Secondly : The rejectors of this doctrine, when detected, have 
ever been excluded from the church. Cerinthus, Marcion, Ebion, 
Theodotus, Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, 
Arius, Macedonius, and all in early times who infringed on 
this doctrine, were at once if ministers, deposed from the minis- 
try and excommunicated from the church. On this subject the 
author above referred to remarks : (Let. v.) "Indeed 1 can can- 
didly assure you, that after devoting much of my life to reading 
of this kind, I cannot recollect a single instance in all antiquity 
in which any individual, or body of individuals, who were 
known to deny the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, were 
regarded as Christians, or suffered to remain in the communion 
of the church," p. 170. "Those who considered the Saviour as 
a mere man; those who regarded him as the first and most ex- 
alted of all creatures ; those who held a mere nominal, and denied 
a real Trinity, that is, who held to a Trinity of names but not 
of persons, were each pronounced in their turn, by the universal 
church, to be corrupters of the truth, and were publicly treated 



305 

as such." — " It is a fact, that such heretics were not only ex- 
cluded from the Catholic or general church, hut their right to 
the name of Christian was solemnly and formally denied." 
All this he confirms hy a particular detail of facts. — Now, quere, 
if you reject this doctrine, are we worse than the primitive 
church in denying to you the name of** Christian/' and refusing 
to consider your society as any part of the Christian church? 
Of your various Apologies, Catechisms, Treatises, in which 
you have published your religious creed to the world, this doc- 
trine, upon which the whole system of salvation rests — this doc- 
trine, so dear to the primitive church and to Christians in every 
age, forms no part ! It is unreasonable, therefore, to suppose 
that you believe it. Had you attached the least importance to 
it, it could not but have been mentioned. The ** God" of Bar- 
clay has not an attribute peculiar to the God of Israel, not an 
attribute to distinguish him from the God of the deist ; and the 
religion which he advocates, is simply what is called natural 
religion, dressed up with a few scriptural terms by way of orna* 
ment ! I defy you to prove the contrary. 

Thirdly : Heretics on this subject, anticipating excom- 
munication as the consequence of an avowal of their doctrines, 
have always studiously concealed their sentiments / In proof of 
this I would refer to the very popular volume above named. 
** My position is, and I believe most sincerely that it may be 
maintained, that in all ages, from the time of Ebion to the pre- 
sent hour, when the mass of the surrounding population was 
orthodox, Unitarians have manifested a disposition to conceal 
their sentiments, to equivocate, and even solemnly deny them 
when questioned, and to disguise themselves under the garb of 
orthodoxy, to a degree which no other sect, calling itself Chris- 
tian, ever manifested," p. 245. The truth of the above charge 
he fully proves in his seventh letter. Irenaeus says : it was the 
practice in his day, for those who denied the Trinity, to « use 
alluring discourses — to pretend to preach like us — and to complain 
that although their doctrine be the same as ours 9 we call them 
heretics," In like manner, Paul of Samosata, who also denied 
the doctrine of the Trinity, when suspected by his brethren, 
and examined on the subject before a general council, *« mani- 
fested so much skill in the arts of co7icealment and equivocation, 
that for a considerable time they could do nothing in his case. 
In the first council that was convened to try him, he went so 
far as to declare on oath, that he held no such opinions as were 
imputed to him ! but it was soon found, that he had acted a dis- 
ingenuous part, and was beginning again to propagate the 
opinions he had disavowed. Another council was called. Again 
he denied and prevaricated. At length Malchion, one of the 
39 



306 

clergy of the church of Antioch, had the address and the fidel- 
ity to interrogate him in such a manner and with such effect, 
that he could no longer escape detection. He was unanimously 
Condemned as a heretic, and deposed from the ministry f* p. 
162. The famous Jlrius, when summoned hefore a general 
council, "discovered a strong disposition to evade and equivo- 
cate, and actually baffled for some time, the attempts of the most 
ingenious and learned of the orthodox, to specify and bring to 
light his errors. At length, by adopting some expressions of 
discriminating import, they succeeded in detecting and exhi- 
biting his opinions in their real deformity," p. 166. Jlrius after- 
wards, when patronized by the emperor, acknowledged and 
defended his heresy. 

The same system of evasion and concealment was practised 
by Laelius and Faustus Socinus ; and it is well known, that till 
lately the same deception was practised by the Anti-trinitarians 
of New-England. Under Bible terms and phrases, they preached 
nothing more than natural religion. Yet when suspected by their 
orthodox brethren, they resented, — when questioned, they 
equivocated, — when charged they denied. And never until an 
entangling net of circumstances brought them to a stand, did 
they avow their heresy. At present however, they do not deny 
their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. 

I have been thus particular in this statement of historical 
facts, because on the same system of disingenuous policy, your 
society has ever acted. You have never dared to avow your sen- 
timents on the subject of the Trinity ; and you dare not at 
this time. An avowal of your sentiments on this subject, 
would strike the Christian community with surprise and horror ! 
In the name of the Christian community, I have repeatedly 
asked a statement of your doctrine on this subject, and six 
months ago offered to postpone every other topic till this point 
was settled ; but notwithstanding your repeated pledge to 6t take 
up old charges before you entered on those of recent date," you 
have repeatedly waived the subject, and seem still disposed to 
pass to other topics of minor consequence. There is nothing 
equivocal in this conduct, the public well understand it, your 

DOCTRINES WILL NOT BEAR THE LIGHT. If VOU think they 

will, please give an honest unevasive answer to the following 
questions : 

1. Do you believe the Commonly received doctrine of the 
Trinity : 2. Do you consider Anti-trinitarians as in a funda- 
mental error ? 3. Can you justify your silence on this subject ? 

PAUL. 



307 

Seventh-day t 6th mo. 15, 1822 

LETTER XXIX. 

In my last communication, I noticed some of my opponent's 
observations and arguments, in his "Episode" on « ministerial 
support," and stated, at the conclusion, that it was my intention 
to reply to others, which my limits then prevented me from 
noticing. In compliance with this intention i shall now proceed. 

«* This controversy, « says Paul," if it has had no other has 
already had one good effect, it has opened the eyes of the com- 
munity to the danger of your doctrines." My greatest fear, 
however, is, that the eyes of the community are yet but very 
partially opened to the « danger of our doctrines !" There is, I 
believe, much more danger to be expected from them, than 
either " Paui" or the public are aware of. It would give Ami- 
cus great pleasure to be the humble instrument of laying be- 
fore the community the extent of that danger. 

In the first place, they are very dangerous to the cause of 
sin and corruption. They attack'* the strong man armed" in the 
very centre of his fortification ! — They lay the " axe to the 
root of the corrupt tree!" — They apply a cleansing power to 
the M inside of the cup and platter." Instead of amusing the 
sinner with a round of lifeless forms and ceremonies, they 
introduce him at once to « the washing pool," to the fountain 
for sin and uncleanness." — Instead of saying : " lo here ! or lo 
there," they say : « believe them not, for the kingdom of God 
is within you." Luke xvii. 21. They represent Christianity, 
not as consisting in a subscription to dogmas and creeds, but 
as an internal powerful principle, condemning sin and destroying 
the very seeds of transgression ! — as the « little leaven !" — 
little in its first appearance, but efficient in its nature, and able, 
if submitted to, "to leaven the whole lump," change the whole 
man ! — and of a sinner to make him holy ! This is very danger- 
ous doctrine to every thing that is evil ! 

In the second place, they are dangerous to the very existence 
of bigotry and sujierstition. They teach the universal love of 
God to mankind ! and as they lead us, not to depend upon any 
human means for instruction or salvation, but upon Christ the 
anointed teacher of the new covenant, so, they do not subject 
us to be imposed upon by the errors and misconceptions of men, 
whose interest or ambition would enlist us to defend their party, 
or promote their unhallowed schemes ! Many, I have no doubt, 
will condemn this doctrine as " fundamentally erroneous ! ! !" 

In the third place, they are very dangerous to priestcraft! — 
They teach that colleges and theological seminaries, can 
neither make a minister of the Gospel, nor qualify him for thfc 



SOS 

work of an Evangelist ! On the contrary, that they are the 
greatest enemies to a pure Gosj)el ministry. They teach, that the 
qualifications of a true minister of Christ, are not received from 
man — according to the doctrine of the Apostle, Gal. i. 11, 12, 
"But I certify you brethren, that the Gospel which was preach- 
ed of me, is not after man, for I neither received it of man, 
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ ;" 
and, as we believe this kind of ministry, to be the only true mi- 
nistry of the Christian church, so, our doctrine must be very dan- 
gerous to a man-made mercenary priesthood, and consequently, 
we need not wonder that " many are surprised and astonished 
at our doctrines." 

But this is not the only danger that priestcraft may appre- 
hend from our doctrines : for they teach that the Gospel should 
be preached " without money and without price" — that genuine 
Gospel ministry has its foundation in the love of God and man ! 
that its reward is the consciousness of having fulfilled, « without 
charge," the service of Christ ; according to the doctrine and 
practice of the Apostle — " If I do this thing willingly I have a 
reward !" — »* What is my reward then ? Verily that when I 
preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel without charge," 
1 Cor. ix. 17, 18. A noble reward truly ! and worthy the 
dignified character of this laborious tent-maker and eminent 
Apostle, who preferred death to the imputation of selfishness in 
the glorious work of the Gospel : see 1 Cor. ix. 15. What dan- 
gerous doctrine the Apostle taught ! I suppose " many are asto- 
nished" at it ! 

But the dangers of our doctrine are very numerous — should 
I attempt to portray them, I should be accused of " prolixity." 
I will however briefly attempt to describe a few of them. 

In the fourth place, they are dangerous to the spirit of war I 
They teach that the day has come, that « the sword" ought to 
be « beaten into ploughshares and the spears into pruning 
hooks" — that " peace on earth and good will to men" is the 
language and spirit of the Gospel dispensation. If this doc- 
trine should prevail, not only the military officer would lose his 
commission ! not only a host of chaplains, in the armies offght- 
ing Christians, would lose their places ! but human butchery 
would cease to be followed as a trade ! ! ! It must be obvious that 
this doctrine is calculated to " astonish" many. 

In the fifth place, they are dangerous to the swearing system 
in civil society. They teach, that Christians are bound by the 
positive command of Christ, to " swear not at all;" and by the 
doctrine of the Apostle James : « Above all things my brethren 
swear not, neither by the heavens, neither by the earth, neither 
by any other oath," Now if this doctrine should obtain an ascen- 



309 

deney, and plain honest truth should be substituted for swearing, 
how many fees for administering oaths, would be arrested in 
their progress to the purses of those, who feed on the j oily and 
wickedness of mankind ? But this is not the only danger of this 
branch of our doctrine — there would be a danger, if swearing 
were abolished, that perjury might cease ! and that all actions 
for this crime might disappear from the docket ! I am per- 
suaded that "many" will think our doctrine on this head ♦'fun- 
damentally erroneous ! ! !" 

In the sixth place, our doctrines are dangerous to human 
slavery ! They teach that « God is no respecter of persons," — 
that man " should do unto others as he would they should do 
unto him," — that the Creator <* made of one blood all nations, 
to dwell on the face of the earth !" — that all men are born equal, 
and have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness." In the consequences of this doctrine, how many 
are concerned? The slave driver, the slave holder, the dealer 
in human flesh — in the blood, bones and sinews of God's ratio- 
nal family ! — the smith who forges manacles, neck collars and 
chains, to bind his poor fellow creature a slave to the caprice and 
cruelty of the professed followers of a compassionate Redeemer, 
are all concerned to unite with my opponent in condemning 
our doctrines (i as fundamentally erroneous" and very « dan- 
gerous ! ! !" 

And lastly — Were our doctrines to prevail, there would be 
great danger, that many modern Christians would be deprived 
of the chaste and christian-like enjoyments of the theatre, ball 
room, masquerade, and many others, that will suggest them- 
selves to those, who are acquainted with our habits and man- 
ners. " Paul," in his first address to us has told us, how much 
he admired our " efficient internal discipline," our '" morality," 
our « civil integrity," &c. &c. the dangers of which to those who 
dislike restraint and prefer creeds and catechisms to "morality" 
or « civil integrity," must be very obvious ! 

Upon the whole, I think that the many dangers attendant on 
our doctrines, have placed both priests and profligates in the 
same predicament ; they must all heartily wish us out of the 
way, and if they could, would "fix a great gulf" between them 
and us ! As long as the society I advocate hold up a clear tes- 
timony against priestcraft and Simony, they will never want 
enemies, until the days come that were foretold by the pro- 
phet, when " the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the 
lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the ser- 
pent's meat," Isaiah Ixv. 25. 

But my opponent, alluding to the text, 1 Cor. ix. 8, 18, which 
he has very partially quoted, leaving out Jour whole verses ! 



310 

says : « I only follow Apostolic example" — that is, in taking mo~ 
ney for preaching, 1 only follow the example of the Apostle ! in 
this short sentence, he has, in the first place, told us, that he « 
one of the «' hireling shepherds" who •* iook for their gain from 
their quarter ;" a circumstance that sufficiently accounts lor his 
zeal on the present occasion, as well as for the sentiments and 
style of his preceding addresses « to the Society of Friends." 
In the second place, he has convinced us, that when a darling 
object is in view, he is not very scrupulous about the means of 
attaining it! His assertion is evidently intended to convey the 
idea, that the Apostle had a salary for officiating as a minis- 
ter ! ! ! instead of aspiring to the dignified and truly honoura- 
ble standing of this eminent servant of Christ, he would wil- 
lingly degrade him to the character of a mercenary parish 
priest ! The idea of fixing a minister to a certain district, 
with a salary for his maintenance, is not to be found in the 
whole New-Testament. The truth is, that all the ministers of 
the primitive church, were called and qualified for their holy 
office by the " Holy Spirit" — they went forth in the service of 
Christ, under the particular direction of their Divine master, 
and, in obedience to his command, " freely ye have received, 
freely give," they invited all to come unto Christ, the only 
fountain of life, and drink of the heavenly stream, « without 
money and without price ;" and until the ministry of the church 
is restored to its primitive state — until the command of our 
Lord is literally obeyed, there will be division and contention 
among Christians — " the gall of bitterness" will be poured into 
the cup of our communion — « the bond of iniquity" will never 
be wholly loosed ! 

In confirmation of this sentiment, let us only glance an eye 
over the pages of Ecclesiastical history, from the second cen- 
tury of our era, when the clergy, (as Mosheim informs us,) 
<« had the good fortune to persuade the people, that the minis- 
ters of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, 
and privileges of the Jewish priesthood," down to the time that 
my opponent asserted <« the spirit of the Jewish law, when all 
Judah brought the tithe of the corn, and the new wine, and the 
oil" for the priest, (i is still binding ;" and we shall plainly 
perceive, that a mercenary clergy have been the principal 
source of all the darkness that has overspread the church, both 
in doctrine and practice — of all the corruption that has dis- 
graced it — of all the persecution that has afflicted it — of all the 
divisions and dissentions that have weakened and wasted it ! 
From the time of Constantine their friend, down to the reign 
of James I. of England, and indeed down to the present time, 
in all countries where they could make an alliance with the 



311 

civil authorities, they have used the sword and the gibbet- 
faggots and fire — whips, chains, and dungeons, to enforce their 
decrees, and bend the spirit of the people to their ambitious 
and corrupt designs ! 

How solemn is the warning voice of history on this momen- 
tous subject ! How strongly should it stimulate every Christian 
society, to exert all their energies to eradicate this germ of apos- 
tacy, to lop off this anti-scriptural branch of the Romish hier- 
archy ! a branch that has produced more bitter fruit — more 
deleterious effects, thau any other that can be named ! For 
twelve centuries, it hung a dark and deadly cloud over the 
Greek and Romish churches — it has darkened the bright morn- 
ing of the reformation, and remains a blot and disgrace to the 
profession of the purest and best religion that was ever reveal- 
ed to the human family ! 

In the exposition of the most undeniable truths, Amicus 
would not, however, be understood to manifest «' an indiscri- 
minate opposition to all ministers of the Gospel, not of our so- 
ciety." A true minister of the Gospel of any religious deno- 
mination, is the highest visible object of my veneration and 
esteem ! I am without bigotry on this subject — J have no doubt, 
that Divine goodness has raised up and qualified some such in 
every Christian community, under every formula of religious 
worship. The Catholics have had their <» Kempises," and their 
« Fenelons" — and the Protestants their « de ia Flecheres," 
and their "John Newtons," and their "Wesleys," and their 
"Lardners" — with many others that I could name but for 
fear of (i prolixity ;" men, who have had more regard to the 
honour of God, and the salvation of his children, than to any 
earthly object! and who, I trust, having "turned many to 
righteousness, will shine as stars in the heavenly firmament, 
for ever and ever.'' It is not the ministers of other societies 
that we oppose — it is their errors — it is « a hireling ministry 99 — . 
it is Simony, the bane and disgrace of the Christian church. 
Our censures fall not on ministers, as ministers, they fall on a 
mercenary priesthood, whether it be found among Jews or Chris- 
tians, Mahometans or Hindoos ! ! ! 

But, says « Paul," " Your practice ought to teach you more 
charity on this subject.' 1 That kind of charity, however, which 
my opponent would cultivate, is a false charity — it is a charity 
that would tolerate a most pernicious error, that would foster a 
serpent in the bosom of the church, whose desperate wound 
ages will not heal — whose poison has infected the channels of 
instruction, and spread a deadly torpor among the professors 
of Christianity. Our practice can never teach us this kind of 
charity ! It is the result of a sound and wholesome charity, that 



312 

commiserates the state of the poor, whether ministers of the 
Gospel, or the obscurest members of the church. We make 
no distinction in the provision for the necessitous. The only 
question is, «* Does he need ?"—-.« Are his efforts to obtain a 
livelihood inefficient?" If they are, a competent aid is afford- 
ed — if to a minister, not because he is a minister, but because lie 
is in want — not to minister to his luxury, but to his necessity ! 
This is all ! w To do less would be a sin," if not against «• ho- 
nesty," yet against charity ! The assertion, that <* a poor 
preacher, who should come down from Philadelphia to Wil- 
mington, to perform a labour of love among us, would probably 
receive double the compensation from oitr society, that a preach- 
er of any other denomination would receive from his society, 
for similar services," is without the least foundation, unless 
other societies would give him only half enough to eat. We 
w 7 ouid not « muzzle" his mouth, nor refuse him an asylum for 
the night. A want of hospitality has never been charged on 
the society by its bitterest enemies — any thing more we should 
be ashamed to offer, and our guest would be still more ashamed 
to receive. No minister amongst us ever received a cent, as a 
compensation for religious services. Let <* Paul" prove this 
assertion incorrect in a single instance, since the days of George 
Fox, if he can ! 

If nothing should occur to divert me from my present pur- 
pose, I shall notice the last address of my opponent in my next 
communication. AMICUS. 

Saturday, June 22, 1822. 

LETTER XXIX. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

H If nothing should occur," says " Amicus," « to divert tnc 
from my present purpose, I shall notice the last address of my 
opponent in my next communication ;" i. e. if the sun does not 
rise within a fortnight, he will make a candid statement of your 
views on the subject of the Trinity. But, gentle reader, if the 
sun should rise, or the tide should ebb and flow in the mean 
time, rest assured, it will be a sufficient V occurrence" to <* di- 
vert him from his purpose." He give a candid statement! 
Reader, if you expect this, you will be disappointed. He would 
as soon cut off his right hand, as make a statement that would 
at once cut off him and your society from the Christian church. 
Tn fact, this wily disputant does not promise such a statement ; 



313 

he simply says he will " notice" my last address, that is, allude 
to it in a distant and satisfactory way. After six months soli- 
citation for his sentiments on a vital subject, upon which he 
ought to have stated his sentiments without asking, he very 
generously promises to " notice" the subject. Wondrous con- 
descension ! to waste his precious time in telling us what God he 
worships ! when he might be so much more profitably employed 
in telling us the difference between yea and yes ; between a drab 
coat and a black one ; between giving to a minister because he 
is poor, and giving to him because he is a minister; between 
paying a preacher behind the curtain, and paying him in open 
day! How much more important to be thus " tything mint, 
anise and cummin," than attending to the «« weightier matters 
of the law !" 

Reader, I am not disposed to trifle either with your time or 
patience, in noticing his last address ; but would proceed im- 
mediately to a new subject, did I not know that this is just what 
«« Amicus 1 ' wants, who would immediately make it the occasion 
of concealing still longer his sentiments on the subject of the 
Trinity, He and the society to which he belongs, would gladly 
have you believe, it is of little consequence what God a man 
worships, " Jehovah, Jove, or Lord," provided he gives him 
the title of God. And so long as you trust in « Christ" for sal- 
vation, that it is of little consequence who or what you mean by 
this title, whether a distinct person of the Trinity, or mere 
conscience. And provided you talk a great deal about the 
« Spirit," it is of little consequence whether you mean the 
Spirit of God, or a false spirit. In short, provided you use 
Scriptural terms, it is not essential you should hold one Scrip- 
tural idea. 

Should « Amicus" condescend to tell us any thing upon the 
subject of the Trinity, he will probably endeavour to evade — 
1. By finding fault with the term, as not found in Scripture. The 
same fault may be found with half the words used in preaching 
or in religious conversation, and our language would be barren 
indeed, and preachers very much fettered, if they could never 
use a word but what the Apostles used. So long as we confine 
ourselves to the doctrines of Scripture, we are at liberty to 
choose the most expressive terms. And if you do not deny the 
doctrine of the Bible on this subject, we care little about the 
term. Any evasion, therefore, on this point, the public will ob- 
serve. The question is, do you hold the doctrine which Chris- 
tians express by the term «« Trinity ?" 

2. He may evade, by saying, " we believe in the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost. 7 ' Answer ; so did Socinus, but he 
denied the divinity of both Son and Spirit. " But we acknow- 
40 



314 

ledge the divinity of the Son and Spirit." Answer ; so did Sa- 
bellius, yet he held there was but one person in the Godhead, 
The same Person who in Heaven is called the Father, (accord- 
ing to his system,) when incarnate, is called the Son, and when 
diffused among Christians, is called the Holy Ghost (This, 
I think, is the common sentiment among your society. But 
any one will perceive at a glance, that this at once destroys all 
idea of atonement) unless the same person could atone to himself, 
and also nullifies other fundamental truths.) Many other eva- 
sions he may make, if so disposed ; but if he is willing to make 
a fair statement of your sentiments on this fundamental point, 
let him state distinctly what he understands, and what your so- 
ciety understand by the terms « Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.'* 
Do you understand them to be three distinct names of the same 
person? or three distinct persons of the same Godhead? 

There are two things in his last address which I would no- 
tice at this time, were I not afraid he will take advantage of 
any other subject I may touch, to waive the subject of the 
Trinity. I will, however, run the risk. 

The first regards his remarks on the subject of " war, the- 
atres and slavery,'' all of which are very good in their place ; 
but in relation to this controversy are mere waste paper, and 
are no more in point than a dissertation upon drunkenness. On 
these subjects we have no dispute. On these subjects, so far 
from bringing any charge against you, in the very commence- 
ment of this correspondence, I avowed my approbation of your 
doctrines. 1 will thank « Amicus" to observe his own rule, 
« to answer old charges, before he takes up those of recent 
date" — or takes up charges that were never brought. His 
whole design in taking up these trifling subjects at this time, 
appears to be to divert the attention of the public from a subject 
on which he feels himself severely pinched ! The above sub- 
jects, strictly speaking, are no part of religion, any more than 
the buttons of your coat are a part of your soul. A man, on 
principles of mere humanity and sound policy, may be as strong- 
ly opposed to oaths, slavery and war, as any of your society 
can be, and yet be a deist or an atheist. What should hinder? 
Your opposition to these civil and political evils, therefore, does 
not prove you a Christian society, though I fear that the greater 
part of your " Christianity" lies in such superficial virtues. 

The other thing which I would notice, is the high compliment 
he pays the Christian religion ; he calls it " the purest and 
best religion that was ever revealed to the human family ! !" 
He does not consider it the oniy religion that ever was reveal- 
ed ; but of the many systems which have been revealed, he 
he thinks this the « purest and best." Accordingly, some time 



315 

since, he ridiculed the idea of attempting to " convert the Hin- 
doos to our kind of religion." And I have one of your Tracts 
lying by me, entitled «< Thoughts on Reason and Revelation, 
especialhj the revelation of the Scriptures." All which are in- 
dicative of your lax sentiments on this subject. Now, a per- 
son of your style of sentiment, might go on to say, " of all the 
Gods ever worshipped, Jehovah is one of the greatest and the 
best !" — *' Of all the Saviours ever trusted in, Jesus of Naza- 
reth is one of the safest and best, — not excepting Mahomet, 
Confucius, or George Fox :" — «< Of all the Bibles in the world, 
that of the Jews is by far the finest and best." Now, what 
Christian does not abhor such compliments ! ! ! Christianity ab- 
hors such comparisons, and condemns all other « religions," as 
much as truth does a lie. The Gospel pronounces all other 
systems, and those who preach them, "accursed." Gal. i. 6. 
The Bible does not say, «« there is no better name," but " there 
is none other name given under heaven whereby we can be 
saved." And to deny Christianity this exclusive divinity, has 
always been considered equivalent to a total rejection of her au- 
thority. 

The public will forgive me for occasionally noticing such in- 
cidental declarations of my opponent $ as it is from these ex- 
pressions, when your writers are off their guard, your secret 
sentiments are betrayed. You always appear, especially in 
controversy, as all heretics love to appear, en masque ; and it 
is only when in an unguarded moment the mask drops off, we 
can detect your real character, and put you to the blush ! On 
the subject of ministerial support, if i( Amicus" chooses to re- 
new the subject, after we shall have discussed the doctrine of the 
Trinity, I will correspond with him till he is tired. PAUL. 



Seventh-day, 6th mo. 29, 1822. 

LETTER XXX. 

•'« But this I confess unto thee, that, after the way which they (the 
priests) call heresy so worship I the God of my fathers, believ- 
ing all things which are written in the law and the prophets." 
Acts xxiv. 14. 

It is no new thing for those who hold up the truth in opposi- 
tion to the errors of interested men, to be charged with heresy. 
So early as the time of Christ's ministry, we find "the chief 
Priests and the Pharisees" in council against the Lord's anoint- 
ed, saying : (i if we let him thus alone all men will believe on 



316 

Mm, and the Romans will come and take away our place. 3 ' John 
xi. 48. This was a pinching circumstance for these mercenary 
priests ! To them " all Judah brought the tithe of the corn and 
the wine and the oil." — It was their place to receive these offer- 
ings under the old Law. — But when Christ came to introduce 
*f a more excellent ministry, which was established upon better 
promises," Heb. viii. 6. teaching the doctrine, " freely ye have 
received, freely give," — *'from that day forth they took counsel 
together to put him to death." To lose one's place is a serious 
consideration under any circumstance ; but for a luxurious idle 
set of men, unaccustomed to honest occupation, to lose their 
place, is intolerable ! — And a woe, as far as may be in their 
power, shall be denounced and inflicted upon every individual 
or society that dare to deprive them of it! 

In proof of this position, we refer to the conduct of Ananias 
the high priest, toward the iVpostle Paul, Acts xxiii. This dis- 
interested Apostle had been engaged in his ministry, to shew, 
that by the coming and death of Christ "the handwriting of 
ordinances was taken out of the way," the priesthood that took 
tithes was changed; a pure, spiritual, and free ministry sub- 
stituted, and consequently that Ananias and his colleagues must 
lose their places. Now mark the conduct of the priests, and we 
shall see that it presents us with a perfect model of their into- 
lerant proceedings in all the succeeding ages of the church ! 

At this time the territory called « the holy land" was under 
the civil authority of the Romans; of course the priests had 
little more than the power to censure or vilify their opponents ! 
This want of power they endeavoured to supply by influence ! 
As they could not inflict corporeal punishment on Paul, they used 
every means to induce the civil authorities to do it for them. — 
For this purpose they brought "a certain orator, named Ter- 
tullus," who, well skilled in the sophistry of their theological 
seihool, was selected as their mouth-piece. But this college- 
bred rhetorician, though a willing instrument in the hands of 
the priests, had a difficulty to encounter which put him to his 
wits end. — The civil powers could not punish for opinions, they 
sought for facts, whereon to ground a legal process, some overt 
act at least, which had a tendency to subvert the Roman govern- 
ment or injure the constitution of civil society. — Now every 
part of the Apostle's conduct — every principle of his religion 
were directed to promote the peace and happiness of man, both 
in this world and in that which is to come, and poor Tertullus, 
like my opponent in our case, had to point to the horrible con- 
sequences of bis faith — had to tell the chief captain that the 
Apostle was " a pestilent fellow" — 6i a mover of sedition" — * a 
ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." — Like a skilful 



317 

orator, he deals first in general charges, reserving his heaviest 
accusation to the last — " A ring leader of the sect of the Naza- 
renes !" heresy ! heresy ! 

In his first address "Paul" tells us, that he "should do in- 
justice to himself and us, not to acknowledge his approbation ot 
our general character. Of our morality and amiability, our 
civil integrity, affectionate manners, examplary simplicity, 
our prudence and economy ; and, he adds, of our efficient inter- 
nal discipline, he has the highest admiration !" In a subsequent 
production, page 62, he acknowledges his " full belief, that 
there are amongst us real saints/" It seems he can find as 
little fault with our character as Tertullus found with that 
of the Apostle ! But all this will not do! If we cannot sub- 
scribe to the absurd and unscriptural doctrines of the Athana- 
sian Creed, if we cannot believe impossibilities, we cannot be 
Christians, and like Tertullus, our redoubtable opponent raises 
the cry of heresy ! heresy ! It is well for us, that here his power 
terminates J 

But though his power terminates here, he fondly hopes his 
influence may extend a little further. — He has endeavoured to 
prepossess his reader with an idea that we are not only heretics, 
but conscious heretics — that we not only hold erroneous doc- 
trines, but know them to be erroneous ! that lest our errors on this 
subject should come to light, we have, " since the days of our 
founder, generally maintained a suspicious silence." In pub- 
lishing to the world such a sentiment, ** Paul" has either 
been guilty of wilful misrepresentation or of inexcusable igno- 
rance, as the writings of our most distinguished authors, pub- 
lished more than a century ago, will abundantly demonstrate. 
George Fox in his " Great Mistery Unfolded," is very full and 
clear on this subject; Francis Howgill, Isaac Pennington, 
Thomas Story, William Penn and many others, very explicitly 
declare our abhorrence of the doctrine, which supposes the 
distinct existence of "three persons in One God." For our op- 
ponent to say we have " never dared to avow our sentiments on 
the subject of the Trinity," is to shew that he is grossly ignorant 
of the society he professes to describe. I know of no people who 
have dared, through the most inhuman persecution, inflicted on 
them by the orthodox Trinitarians, so fully to avow their senti- 
ments on this subject ! as I expect by quotations from their 
writings clearly to demonstrate. Whether we "dare at this 
time" to speak plainly to this question will soon be seen. As 
truth needs no disguise, Amicus has no fear to expose her — as 
error needs only to be seen in order to be rejected by disinte- 
rested men, so Amicus will be gratified by this opportunity to 
bring her to the light. As to the cry of "heresy," — the last 



31S 

resort of a mercenary clergy — the last refuge of a waning 
priesthood, it were perhaps too hard to deprive them of it, even 
if we might ; we will therefore leave them, in the undisturbed 
possession of all the comfort, which, in this enlightened age, it 
is calculated to afford them ! ! ! 

1 now proceed to consider « Paul's" three queries contained 
in his xxviiith address to us, pa^es 304,305, — to which, when 
he clearly and honestly explains himself, 1 shall be very 
glad to give *« an honest unevasive answer !" — And first : ** Do 
you believe the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity ?" 
Now I honestly declare, that I never knew that there was any 
commonly received doctrine of the Trinity ! The Trinitarians 
are so split to pieces, and widely divided on this incomprehen- 
sible doctrine, that it requires more discernment than has fallen 
to the lot of Amicus, to discover what is « the commonly receiv- 
ed doctrine," or whether there be any such ! Are 6i Wateriand" 
and the rest of the Athanasians orthodox, who assert, that 
« there are three proper distinct persons entirely equal, and in- 
dependant upon each other, yet making up one and the same 
Being? — Or is « Howe" correct, who supposes there are three 
distinct eternal Spirits — or distinct intelligent hijpostases, each 
having his own distinct intelligent nature, united in such an in- 
explicable manner, that, on account of their perfect harmony, 
consent, affection, and mutual self-consciousness, they may be 
called one God, as properly, as the different corporeal, sensi- 
tive, and intellectual natures united, may be called one man ; 
or, are i( Owen" and the bishops " Pearson" and " Bull" in the 
right, who are of the opinion, that, "though God the Father is 
the fountain of the Deity, the whole divine nature is communicat- 
ed from the Father to the Son," (and so the Father must have 
no divine nature left !) and the i( whole divine nature is commu- 
nicated from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit," (and 
so the Father and the Son must have no divine nature left !) and 
yet the Father and the Son are not separable nor separated 
from the Divinity, but still exist in it, and are most intimately 
united to it ! ! ! — Or is <* Burnet" in the true faith, who main- 
tains that " there is one self existent, and two dependant beings 
in the Godhead ?" and asserts, that, the two latter are so united 
and inhabited by the former, that by virtue of that union, divine 
perfections may be ascribed, and divine worship be paid to 
them. — Or is <« Wallis" a safe guide to orthodoxy, who thought 
the distinction between the three persons was only modal ! ac- 
cording to the opinion of « archbishop Tillotson ! !" Or was 
" Watts" sound in the faith when he maintained, that there is 
One Supreme God dwelling in the human nature of Christ — 
which human nature he supposes to have existed the first of all 



319 

creatures ! — and when he spoke of the Divine Logos as the 
wisdom of God, and the Holy spirit as the Divine power — or 
the influence or effect of it ? Or are all these learned theologians 
wrong ? — and are we to subscribe to the Roman Catholic creed 
of Athanasias, in order to be orthodox ? As I very much doubt 
whether there ever has been any commonly received doctrine 
on this "fundamental," this" all-important" point, since the day 
when fire and faggot were the portion of every man, woman 
and child, who did not yield a full and unqualified assent, to every 
proposition of a cruel blood thirsty priest-hood, I shall expect 
my learned opponent will condescend to give us ample instruc- 
tion in the case, that at least, we may not " perish for lack of 
knowledge ! ! !" 

Secondly — Do you consider Anti-trinitarians as in a funda- 
mental error ? In other words, do you believe that all who do 
not believe that God is divided into three parts, " three divine 
persons," and yet not three persons, but one Divine person 5 
are fundamentally wrong, and consequently go to the bottom- 
less pit, because they cannot believe impossibilities ? Answer ; 
I confidently believe we hold no such blasphemous opinions ! 
We should be very sorry to think that such men as the excel- 
lent Isaac Newton, John Locke, Dr. Lardner, Dr. Samuel 
Clarke, Hoadly, Law, Blackburn, Emlyn, Lindsey, Price, 
Jebb, Wakefield, Chandler, Taylor, Benson, Cappe, Kippis, 
Bishop Clayton, Abernethy, Leland, Lowman, Palmer, Tyrr- 
whit, Disney, Kenrick, Simpson, Toulmin, Reynolds, Estlin, 
Enfield, Bretland, Turner, Elwall, Biddle, Firman, Hopton, 
Haines, George Fox, Robert Barclay, Francis Howgill, Wil- 
liam Penn, and many others who might be named, were all con- 
signed to eternal perdition for disbelieving what, in truth, no 
body can believe, who retains the use of his rational faculties, 
unless it be possible to believe contradictory propositions ! 

Thirdly — " Can you justify your silence on this subject?" 
If my readers wish to know how silent we have been on this 
subject, let them consult George Fox's " Great Mystery Un- 
folded," small folio 1659 ; Robert Barclay's " Truth Vindicat- 
ed," folio ; " Howgill's Works," folio ; " Isaac Pennington's 
Works," quarto; William Penn's " Sandy Foundation Shaken," 
and his " Select Works," folio, all published more than a cen- 
tury ago! These works will convince the most obstinate ad- 
versary, that the people who my opponent says, " never dared 
to avow their sentiments on the subject of the Trinity," have 
not " generally maintained a suspicious silence," and I trust 
they will convince many of a different character — .many who 
are seeking " the truth as it is in Jesus," that our doctrines on 
this point are " the doctrines of the New Testament," sustained 



320 

?jy sound reason, and with a strength of argument which no 
sophistry can withstand. For the satisfaction of those who 
may not have the opportunity of perusing these writings, I in- 
tend to quote some parts of them in my future essays on this 
subject. AMICUS. 



Saturday, July 6, 1822. 

LETTER XXX. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

« Great is the mystery of Godliness," 1 Tim. iii. 16. 

I congratulate (( Amicus" and the public, on the frank- 
ness and boldness of his last communication. There is a mean- 
ness in the concealment of our religious sentiments, which 
every Christian should distain. In his distinct avowal of his 
heresy, (so far as candor is concerned,) he has done well. I 
hope he will proceed, and not only tell us what your sentiments 
are not, but what they are. As he seems in every essay to be 
tremblingly afraid of fire and faggot from a « cruel, mercenary 
and blood-thirsty priesthood," I would gently remind him that 
the days of blood and fire are now out of date, and that all the 
«« persecution" he or your society may expect at this time, is 
simply to be thrust through a few times with « the sword of the 
spirit, which is the word of God," — a weapon which however it 
may kill heretics, never yet injured a Christian. 

His quotation from the Apostle Paul, Acts xxiv. 14, would 
have been very much in point, had he not mistaken the most 
important part, the application. This Apostle, for preaching 
the resurrection of the dead, and the Divinity and atonement of 
Jesus Christ, was arraigned by certain men who denitd all these 
things, who trusted to their own righteousness for salvation, and 
preferred an unwritten to a written law as their rule in religion. 
By only changing sides, therefore, the quotation has great force. 

That we may have no douJ)t of his rejection of the Trinity, 
he speaks of the "absurd and unscriptural doctrines of the 
Athanasian creed." He calls it an " incomprehensible doctrine," 
an " impossibility, a " contradictory proposition," a " blasphe- 
mous opinion," and says that Howgill, Pennington, Story, Penn 
and many others, have explicitly declared our abhorrence of the 
doctrine which supposes the distinct existence of three persons in 
one God! And again, speaking of Lardner, Lindsey, Clarke, 
Price, Firman and others, who denied the real Divinity and 



321 

atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says: "we cannot be- 
lieve they are consigned to perdition for not believing what in 
truth no man can believe who retains the use of his rational 
faculties, unless it be possible to believe contradictory pro- 
positions,'' 9 

A very fine compliment this to Trinitarians ! — that we have 
not the « use of our rational faculties," or that we do " not be- 
lieve" what we profess to believe ; and that the doctrine of a 
Trinity in Unity is a " contradictory proposition ! !" But though 
« Amicus" is thus explicit in his statements, that your other 
standard writers have fully explained your sentiments on this 
subject, I shall take the liberty to doubt, until "Amicus" 
proves it by quotations. I do still therefore prefer the charge 
of a "suspicious silence" and disingenuous concealment. 

I will now notice some of his objections. " The Trinitarians,'* 
says he, " are so split in pieces, and so widely divided on this in- 
comprehensible doctrine, that it is hard to tell what is the com- 
monly received doctrine." This, I presume, will be new to 
most people ; I confess it is so to me. And after looking over 
the phrases used by Waterland, Howe, Owen, Pearson and 
Bull, as stated by my opponent, it will puzzle common readers 
to discover much diversity of sentiment. They all held to the 
existence of three co-equal 9 co-eternal and co-essential persons in 
the Godhead. If in their more private explanations, some pre- 
ferred the word " Spirits," others " Agents," others " Hypos- 
tases," the difference is of no moment. Ail these were as far 
from the doctrines of Lardner, Clarke, Lindsey, Price, Wake- 
field, Kippis, Firman, Barclay, and others of your i( excellent" 
Arians and Socinians, as Christianity is from heresy, or wor- 
shipping the Creator is from worshipping the creature. 

Arians will admit, that the Father, Son and Spirit are three 
distinct persons, but they deny the equality of the three. The 
Sabellians acknowledge the equality and eternity of the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost, but they deny that these are Three Di- 
vine Persons, and hold that these are mere names or attributes, 
or offices of the One Person of the Godhead. Macedonians deny 
that the Spirit is a person at all, or any thing more than an attri- 
bute. Thomas BiirnePs system of " one self existent and two de- 
pendent beings,'' though you speak of it as « orthodox," is not 
Trinitarianism,but an abomination. Now to all these notions, the 
" commonly received" doctrine of the Trinity is diametrically 
opposed. In opposition to Sabellians, we hold that the Father, 
Son and Spirit, are not three attributes, but Persons; — in op- 
position to Arians, that they are three Divine Persons, co-equal 
and co-eternal; and in opposition to Tritheists, that these three 
are co-essential or of one substance. 
41 



322 

What authority " Amicus" had for placing Newton and Locke 
on the Unitarian list, I know not. This much is certain, if they 
were not Trinitarians, they were arrant hypocrites, for they 
were members of the Episcopal church, and habitually used a 
Trinitarian liturgy ! 

And now, as you have explicitly denied the doctrine of the 
Trinity, it is proper I should adduce the arguments in its favour. 
But, I. Let me observe it is an infinitely important subject. 
Upon it the whole Christian system hangs. The Divinity, the 
Atonement, the Intercession, with the whole character and work 
of Christ, — the Divinity and work of the Holy Spirit, the in- 
spiration of the Scriptures, and all our hopes of salvation live 
or die with the doctrine of the Trinity. The decision of this 
question will determine whether you or we are idolaters. 

% We acknowledge it is a mystery, the greatest of all 
mysteries. And when you have proved this you have proved 
nothing, until you have proved that nothing mysterious is to he 
believed. 

3. We rely for proof solely on revelation, using reason no 
farther than to determine the authenticity and the grammatical 
and logical sense of that revelation. 4. We shall not attempt to 
prove the Unity of God, but take that for granted, as no Trini- 
tarian ever intended to deny it. 

4. We shall not attempt to prove that the word 6( person," 
when applied to the Deity, means precisely the same thing as 
when applied to men ; but simply, that no other word will do so 
'well to express the distinction between the Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost. 

These things being premised, I proceed to show, first, that 
God is a plural Being; secondly, that fie is a triune Being ; and 
thirdly, that the Father, Sen and Holy Ghost are properly con- 
sidered and styled three divine (6 Persons" 

First, God is a plural Being. If I understand you, you are 
not particularly opposed to the number three, more than to two, 
or any other number. But you hold to Unity in opposition to all 
plurality in the Godhead. If therefore you are compelled to 
admit a plurality, you will have no objection to admit a Trinity 
of persons. 

Now, 1. If God be not a plural Being, how do you account 
for it, that he has a plural Mime ? The most common name of 
the Deity in the Old Testament (in Hebrew) is Meim, or Elo~ 
him, a plural noun ! How do you account for this I And if this 
plurality is not also consistent with unity, how do you account 
for it, that this plural noun is often nominative to a singular 
verb ? Thus " God created," (Dii creavit,) « God said," «« God 
called," " God made," « God blessed," phrases which occur 






323 

twenty nine times in the very first chapter of the Bible, exhibit 
the mysterious anomaly of a plural nominative to a singular 
verb ! Does it not denote that the Jlgent is plural but the ac- 
tion one? 

But you will perhaps say : i( the name is not plural, it is the 
idiom of the language." How then do yoa account for it, that 
this same name is sometimes nominative to a plural verb, and 
connected with plural adjectives ? Thus Gen. xx. 13, " It came 
to pass when God caused me to wander from my father's house, 
&c." (Deus me errare jacerent) Here the verb " caused" is in 
the plural number, agreeing with its plural nominative. Josh, 
xxiv. 19, " He is an holy God" (ipse Deus sancti.) Here the 
adjective « holy" is plural, agreeing with its substantive «« God," 
How can you account for this ? 

2. Why has he plural titles, and plural attributes ? As in Job 
xxxv. 10, " Where is God my Maker ?" literally « Makers." 
Eccle. xii. 1, « Remember thy Creator," literally « Creators." 
(v. Scott or any other commentator.) Dan. iv. 17, "This mat- 
ter is by the decree of the Watchers, and the demand by the 
word of the Holy Ones, &c." Any one who will consult the chap- 
ter will see that these are titles of the « Most High God." But 
how can He be called the « Watchers" and the " Holy Ones," 
unless He be a plural Being ? Isa. liv. 5, « For thy Maker is thy 
husband, &c." Here, both Maker and husband are in the plural 
number. This can never be explained on your principles ; but is 
easily solved on the supposition, that though plural as to per- 
sons, God is but one in essence. 

3. If God be not a plural Being, why does he speak of him- 
self in the plural number ? Gen. i. 26, «* And God said, let us 
make man, in our image, and after our likeness. So God ere- 
ated man in his own image, &c." Now why should God speak 
of himself in the plural number, unless he be indeed a plural 
Being?-— Again, Gen. iii. 5, Satan tells our first parents : « Ye 
shall be as Gods (literally as God) knowing good and evil." 
After the fall, the Lord says : «« Behold the man has become 
as one of us, knowing good and evil." (22) — Again, Gen. xi. 7, 
*' The Lord said : let us go down and there confound their 
language, &c." — Again, Isa. vi. 8, "And I heard the voice of 
the Lord saying: whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" 
Can you assign as good a reason as a Trinitarian for his speak- 
ing of himself in the plural number ? 

4. If there be not a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
why is the name Jehovah given to more than one ? This name, 
it is well known, implies self existence, independence, immu- 
tability and eternity, and is therefore the incommunicable name 
of the only God. The person who appeared to Abraham in the 



324, 

plain of Mamre, (Gen. xviii. 1,) to whom Abraham prayed 9 and 
whom he addressed as the « Judge of all the earth," (25) who 
is called Jehovah fourteen times in that single chapter, is 
spoken of in the xixth chapter 24th verse, as a distinct person 
from Jehovah in heaven. As he stood upon the earth and called 
down fire from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah, it is said, 
"Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah 
brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven." From this 
text and many others of a similar kind, it is evident to me, 
either that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, or 
a plurality of Gods. The latter supposition is an absurdity, 
and an impossibility; the former is & possibility, but is a great 

MYSTERY. PAUL. 



Seventh-day, 7th mo, 13, 1822. 

LETTER XXXI. 

In my opponent's last address to us, he informs us, that " the 
days of blood and fire are now out of date." This is indeed a 
happy circumstance, and while it demands our gratitude to a 
gracious Providence, should stimulate us to use every proper 
means to prevent those who may be so disposed, from regaining 
the power to regulate our faith by « fire and faggot." It would 
be no difficult task to prove that we are not indebted to the 
clergy for our present liberty ! They have lost no power by 
their own consent ! We will do them the justice to acknowledge, 
that, they have not only contended with spirit for every inch of 
ground they have lost, but that they are using very ingenious 
means to recover that ascendency, which once made them for- 
midable. It is very true, they cannot now use Jire 9 faggot, or 
halter! but the weapons of detraction and abuse are still left 
them. They can still cry * heresy" — can still pronounce the 
most sincere and conscientious dissenter from their creed a 
*f schismatic,"— a « deist," — a " spurious Christian," — a " he- 
retic !" And it must also be placed to their credit, that they 
have by no means been idle in the use of these weapons ! 

My opponent has frequently declared, that the Bible is « the 
"Word of God." On this point we differ. The society I advo- 
cate, maintain the Scripture doctrine, that Christ the Saviour, 
is « the Word of God," according to John i. 1. Rev. xix. 13. 
This divine word is " the sword of the Spirit," a weapon that 
our modern 4 « Paul" has formally rejected, and consequently, 
has no other means of « killing heretics" than they have of 
killing him. "The literal and logical sense of the Scrip- 



o2b 

tures," which my opponent makes his rule, and which the 
carnal Christian may understand as well as any, leaves the 
orthodoxies and the heterodox on even ground ! thus, <• the 
shield of the mighty he hath vilely cast away/' 2 Sam. i. 21. 

But whenever the plain doctrines of the Holy Scriptures ap- 
pear inimical to the designs or interest of my opponent, it is 
remarkable how boldly he deserts his own standard — shows 
himself false to his colours, and employs all his theological 
learning in an attack on doctrines and practices, remarkably 
accordant with the principles and example of the primitive 
church, as I have already shown in a variety of cases ! But 
there is hardly any case that more plainly shows the depar- 
ture of our opponents from their own pretended rule, than the 
gross doctrine of the " Trinity," as I shall endeavour to prove. 

In the first place, the term "Trinity," is not to be found in 
the whole Bible, nor is there any equivalent expression in the 
language of inspiration ! This is no light argument against the 
doctrine itself; because if Divine Wisdom had intended to 
teach that the Deity was composed of « three distinct and se- 
parate persons" — that he " was a plural Being" — was " a So- 
ciety in himself," he would have inspired the Scripture writers 
with language clearly to convey such ideas, which they cer- 
tainly never have done ! Even the spurious text quoted by my 
opponent, and placed at the head of his communication, 
Letter xxviii. p. 302, does not use the gross terms « Three 
persons," nor does it tell us that the "three that bear re- 
cord in heaven," are "distinct and separate;" on the con- 
trary, it tells us i6 these three are one." Now, if God be one, 
he cannot be (i three persons." The term person, implies iden- 
tity of being, individuality, separate existence ! the terms 
« three distinct and separate Divine persons," imply three dis- 
tinct Gods ! Trinitarians tell us they do not understand them 
so. That may be — yet, that this is the clear meaning of the 
terms, is unquestionably true ! If they do not wish others to re- 
ceive this idea, let them choose better terms ; and if it would 
not be too presumptuous, I would advise them to resort to the 
language of inspiration for suitable words by which to explain 
themselves. There can be no better vocabulary than « the 
supreme and only standard of faith and practice ! ! !" 

The term "Trinity," was not invented, until the church had 
made large advances into the apostacy from " the faith once de- 
livered to the saints ;" not until Simony began to be openly ad- 
vocated by the clergy ! not until the bishops of the church had 
(as Mosheim informs us) " assumed a rank and character similar 
to those of the high priests among the Jews, whilst the Presby- 
ters represented the priests ? and the deacons the Levites ,•" thus 



326 

"opening a new source both of honour and profit to the sacred 
order." Eccl. Hist. Cent. II. Part 2. eh. ii. sec. 4. 

The learned Dr. Maclaine, in his account of Ecclesiastical 
writers in the second century, says ; " Theophilus of Antioch 
was the first who made use of the word Trinity ', to express the 
distinction of what divines call persons in the Godhead. The 
Christian world/' says he, " are very little obliged to hina for 
his invention. The use of this 9 and other unscriptural terms, to 
which men attach either no ideas, or false ones, has wounded 
charity and peace, without promoting truth and knowledge. It 
has produced heresies of the very worst kind!" Now, if Dr. 
Maclaine be correct, and ! think his statement will not be dis- 
puted — then, as every production is of the nature of its parent, 
and as heresies of the very worst kind Were produced by the * erm 
« Trinity," it must, I think, be very heretical to adopt, it at all as 
a representative of any part of our faith. At any rate, it is 
unscriptural, and they that use it, so far depart from what my 
opponent calls « the supreme and only standard of faith and 
practice ! ! !" 

Some may suppose it is unimportant what tc ns we use to 
convey our meaning on religious subjects. This, however, is a 
pernicious error! They who think so, know very little of hu- 
man nature — are very ignorant of the power of names ! We 
have not only the testimony of Dr. Maclaine, "that the term 
6 Trinity' produced heresies of the very worst kind :" the uni- 
form acknowledgement of Ecclesiastical writers, and our own 
experience, show that it has never served a better purpose, than 
to produce division and contention ! In the early ages of the 
church, it was a prolific source of wars, bloodshed, and the 
most shocking cruelties. Since that time, it has ever perplex- 
ed and divided the most learned and pious professors of the 
Gospel — and at the present day is held up as a standard of or- 
thodoxy, round which, not charity and peace, but the very worst 
passions of depraved human nature seem delighted to rally ! 
And yet, as if to manifest the inconsistency of the professors 
of Christianity, this same fatal term, which was never dictat- 
ed by the Holy Spirit, is tenaciously adhered to by the very 
men who tell us, that u the Bible is the supreme and only stand- 
ard of faith and practice ! ! !" 

Now, let those who profess to be ruled by the Holy Scrip- 
tures, lay aside all unscriptural language ; let them reject the 
unintelligible, incongruous terms of " Trinity,'' " Plural Be- 
ing," " Glorious Society in the Godhead," with all others not 
found in the inspired volume, and we shall soon see the happy 
effects of such a measure. Thousands, who revolt with disgust 
from these terms, are perfectly willing to avow the doctrines 



327 

relative to the Divine nature, as expressed in the Bible. There 
is no genuine text in the Holy Scriptures, to which the society 
I advocate, do not freely and unreservedly subscribe ! It is the 
presumptuous dogmatism of poor, weak, jarring and contentious 
men, that we oppose ! It is the interpretation, the gloss, the 
sense, or rather the nonsense, that fallible expounders of the 
sacred text would impose on us, that we reject ! Now. can any 
Christian desire more than we grant? Can any rati onal man 
condemn us for what we refuse ? Must we not only subscribe 
to Scripture doctrines, but to the inventions and absurdities of 
a grossly carnal church, against which WicklifFe, Luther, Cal- 
vin, Zuinglius, Melancthon, and others protested ? Must we 
be deemed heretics for refusing to submit to the dogmas and 
decisions of a church which pronounced the reformation a heresy 9 
and anathematized those faithful sons of the morning, who, at 
the hazard of every worldly blessing, separated themselves 
from its anti-christian communion ! ! ! 

All the attributes of the Deity, his omniscience, his omni- 
presence, his omnipotence, his eternity, his justice, goodness, 
mercy, &c. the Divinity and office of Christ, as the Saviour, 
the Redeemer, the Mediator and Intercessor, the only means of 
salvation to man, we reverently acknowledge. We fully be- 
lieve in the Divine inspiration of the sacred penmen, the au- 
thenticity of the Holy Scriptures, the necessity of the new 
birth, and that *' without holiness no man shall see the Lord :" 
yet all this will not make us orthodox ! ! ! We must believe what 
I conceive no man can rationally believe, that Jehovah is a com- 
pound Being, made up of (i three distinct and separate per- 
sons." 

And what is this orthodoxy, of which we hear Trinitarians 
so frequently boasting? — It is the judgment of fallible men ! !! 
men, of whom we may truly say, in the language of the Patri- 
arch, " Instruments of cruelty were in their habitation." Now, 
is my opponent prepared to adopt the popish doctrine of the 
infallibility of councils? — if not, why should we submit to the 
councils of Alexandria and Nice any more than toothers? Was 
there so much Christian meekness, so much of that 6i charity 
which suffereth long and is kind," exhibited by them, as to en- 
title them to superior respect ? Let authentic history answer ! 
Orthodoxy and heresy, as now understood on this subject, are both 
of them the offspring of secular power and clerical intoler- 
ance ; — these terms, though once terrible, can now have but 
little weight with dispassionate and disinterested men ; they 
are like the superanuated lion, who has lost both claws and 
teeth ! 

We have noticed the origin of the term «■ Trinity," and have 



328 

heard Dr. Maclaine's excellent remarks upon it : let us now 
take a view of the rise and progress of the doctrine of " three 
persons in one God." 

Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. Part. 2. chap. 
v. after giving an account of the divisions which troubled the 
church in the three first centuries, says: " Soon after the com- 
mencement of the fourth century, a new contention arose in 
Egypt [a land always remarkable for spiritual darkness] upon 
a subject of much higher importance, and with consequences of 
a much more pernicious nature : The subject of this fatal contro- 
versy , which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the 
Christian world, was the doctrine of three persons in the 
Godhead ! — a doctrine, which, in the three preceding centu- 
ries, had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, 
and had been left undefined and undetermined by any particu- 
lar set of ideas. Nothing had hitherto been dictated to the 
faith of Christians in this matter, nor were there any modes of 
expression prescribed, as requisite to be used in speaking of 
this mystery !" 

Here we see the beginning of this new doctrine — this fatal 
controversy ! — Its birth was marked by " deplorable divisions," 
its infancy by the most " pernicious consequences," which have 
« grown with its growth, and strengthened with its strength," 
affording an evidence of the most impressive kind, that it ne- 
ver could have originated with the source of Divine light and 
truth ! If we may judge from its fruits, it must have been the 
contrivance of Anti-christ himself, in a fit of the deadliest en- 
mity to the peace and harmony of the church ! 

On a review of these important facts, it may be profitable 
for Christians in general to inquire, « Why this doctrine had so 
happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches for the 
first three centuries ?" Can we suppose that the Apostles and 
primitive Christians, were less concerned to obtain and propa- 
gate just ideas of the one true God, than Arius and the Bishop 
of Alexandria? Or must we conclude that they held a "sus- 
picious silence on this subject?" Or are we to believe, that the 
schools and theological seminaries of Egypt, had poured such a 
flood of Gospel light into the minds of these learned janglers, 
in the fourth century, that they understood the nature and man- 
ner of existence of Jehovah, better than the unlearned fish- 
ermen and humble disciples of Judea and Gallilee ? However 
" Patji." may answer these questions, I cannot doubt that ex- 
perimental Christians of all denominations will say, No! Theo- 
logical seminaries and human learning, so far as they have been 
employed in diving into the mysteries of the Divinity, have al- 
ways " darkened counsel by words without knowledge ! /" — 



32i* 

Even Dr. Miller, who lias written a volume of more than three 
hundred pages, in defence of Trinitarianism, candidly con- 
fesses that he does not understand the subject ! that he does 
not comprehend either what he means when he says, " there 
are three persons in the Godhead," or what is to be understood 
by the term " Unity." Letter iii. page 82, 83, 84. Now, can 
there b^ a greater folly, than to wrangle and write volumes on 
such a subject, with no more light than Dr. Miller has to help 
him ? — Or can there be a stronger evidence of that great truth 
expressed by our Lord himself: Matt. xi. 27, "No man know- 
eth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Fa- 
ther save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
him." We may read all the books on the subject of the 
Trinity, with which theological doctors and professors have 
burdened the world since the days of Arius and the Bishop of 
Alexandria, and we shall retire from the subject darker and 
more confused than when we first approached it, unless it please 
Him, who declared himself to be the « light of the would,'* 
the great Gospel Luminary, to shed a beam of light from his 
own immediate presence, upon our understandings. Without 
this, we can really know nothing of the Divine nature. With 
this, we shall want to know nothing of it, but what we may 
learn through this Divine medium ! And this brings us to the 
true reason, "why this subject so happily escaped the vain 
curiosity of human researches for the three first centuries." 
He that has the light of the sun, has no desire to sit by a can- 
dle ! To the Apostles and primitive Christians, God was known 
by\the revelation of his Spirit. They could say, « God, who 
commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our 
hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in 
the face [the manifestation] of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. 
Consequently, they wanted no theological jargon to satisfy their 
minds on this important subject. The knowledge thus obtain- 
ed, is inseparably connected with salvation. "This is life 
eternal, to know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." John xvii. Our knowledge of the God- 
head obtained in any other way, is but learned ignorance ! 

I will close this communication with an extract from a work, 
entitled « Innocency with her open face," written by « that 
good man William Penn," expressly to vindicate the doctrine 
of " the Divinity of Christ.'' — «« Ry virtue of the sound know- 
ledge and experience received from the gift of the Holy Unc- 
tion and Divine grace, inspired from on high, I sincerely own 
and unfeignedly believe in one holy, just, merciful, almighty, 
and eternal God, who is the Father of all things — who appeared 
to the holy Patriarchs and Prophets of old, < at sundry times 



330 

and in divers manners/ And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the ever- 
lasting Wisdom, Divine Power, true Light, only Saviour and 
Preserver of all ; the same One, holy, just, merciful, almighty 
and eternal God, who in the fulness of time, took, and was 
manifested in the flesh ; at which time he preached the ever- 
lasting Gospel of repentance, and promise of remission of sins 
and eternal life, to all that heard and obeyed ; who said : 'He 
that is with you (in the flesh) shall be in you (by the spirit,)— 
and though he left them (as to the flesh,) yet not comfortless, for 
he would come to them again (in the Spirit :) — for a little while, 
and they should not see him (as to the flesh ;) again, a little 
while, and they should see him (in the Spirit;) for the Lord Je- 
sus Christ is that Spirit, a manifestation whereof is given to 
every man to profit withal.' In which Holy Spirit, 1 Jbelieve, 
as the same Almighty and Eternal God, who, as in those times 
he ended all shadows, and became the infallible guide to them 
that walked in the Spirit, by which they were adopted heirs 
and co-heirs of glory ; so am I a living witness, that the same 
holy, just, merciful, almighty and eternal God, is now, as then, 
(after a tedious night of idolatry, superstition and human in- 
ventions, that hath overspread the world) gloriously manifest- 
ed to discover, and save from all iniquity, and to conduct unto 
the Holy Land of pure and endless peace ; in a word, to taber- 
nacle in men. And I also firmly believe, that without repent- 
ing and forsaking of past sins, and walking in obedience to this 
heavenly voice, which would guide into all truth, and establish 
there, remission [of sin] and eternal life, can never be obtained; 
hut they that fear his name, and keep his commandments, and 
they only, shall have a right unto the tree of life. 1 Cor. viii. 
5, 6 ; Heb. i. 1 ; John i. 14 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 $ Matt. iv. 17 ; Luke 
xxiv. 47 ; John xvii. 17, 18. xvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 7 ; 
Rom. viii. 14, 17 ; Rev. xxi. 3 ; Prov. xxviii. 13 ; Luke xiv. 
33 ; Rev. xxi. 27. xxii. 14." 

In the foregoing extract, Penn has, in strong, plain Scrip- 
ture language, given his views on the subject now in discussion. 
I invite my reader to take his Bible, and refer to the texts he 
has quoted. To me Penn appears to be orthodox, in the best 
sense of the word. It was written in the year 1668. 

AMICUS. 

P. S. The argument of my opponent, drawn from one of the 
numerous anomalies of the Hebrew language, is, in my opinion, 
below criticism. 



331 

Saturday, July 20, 1322, 

LETTER XXXI. 

OX THE TRINITY. 

« Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not 
God ; he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Fa- 
ther and the Son." % John 9. 

Paganism, atheism, popery and deism, have each had their 
day ; each has fought its battle with the Gospel, and has left 
the field. Tlje great enemy of truth at the present day, is 
« Unitarianism ,, — the same old enemy, under a new shape. 
The Bible has gained such ascendency in the world, and Chris- 
tianity has become so popular, that no religionist dare show his 
head without acknowledging the inspiration of the one, and the 
divinity of the other. Unitarianism accordingly assumes the 
name of Christianity, but inculcates none of her peculiar doc- 
trines ; professes to receive the Bible as a revelation, but tears 
it to pieces by biblical criticism, conjectural emendations, denial 
of plenary inspiration, and subjecting all its incomprehensible 
mysteries to be hewed and squared, and levelled by self-con- 
ceited reason. Milner, the Ecclesiastical historian, has well 
described it as «* an admission of Christianity generally, and 
then denying all those things in which Christianity consists." In 
general, they have no creed — but to be opposed to creeds and 
to hate the «« doctrines of grace." Their system has been cor- 
rectly stated in the form of negatives, by the editor of the 
Evan, and Lit. Magazine of Virginia. "1. They do not believe 
the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. They do not believe the divini- 
ty of Christ," (as a separate person from the Father.) " 3. They 
do not believe the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. 
4. They do not believe the doctrine of atonement. 5. They do 
not believe the doctrine of original sin. 6. They do not believe 
the doctrine of justification by faith. 7. They do not believe 
the doctrine of everlasting punishment. 8. They do not believe 
the plenary inspiration of the writers of Scripture." He might 
have added : 9. They do not believe in the existence of evil spi- 
rits. 10. They reject all mysteries. 11. They make charity 
and indifference to truth the same thing. 12. They make little 
or nothing of baptism and the Lord's supper. 13. Like the In- 
dians, they seldom show themselves in the open field. The 
cardinal principle of this system, the rejection of the Trinity, 
" Amicus" in your name has already avowed. You will hence- 
forth, therefore, stand before the Christian public with the 



name of " Unitarian ism" on your front. I will now notice 
some of your objections. 

Obj. 1. « The term « Trinity' is not in the Bible." This 
puerile objection has been already answered. We are not dis- 
puting about the term, but about the doctrine. The term is a 
very simple and a very happy one to express the Three-one 
God. Refute the doctrine, and we will renounce the term. 

Obj, 2. "We are ready to subscribe every genuine text of 
Scripture — can any Christian desire more ?" Yes ; David Hume 
would do the same, and yet reject the whole. Every Socinian 
professes the same, and yet denies that Jesus Christ is any 
thing more than man. He will reject as " spurious" every 
text which does not tally with his system, and cannot be tor- 
tured into conformity to his doctrine. Is he therefore ortho- 
dox ? An Universalist will subscribe the text* " the wicked shall 
go away into everlasting punishment," and yet rise up immedi- 
ately and preach a limited or temporary punishment. There is 
not a Pelagian, Swedenborgian, or Shaking Quaker in the land, 
that will refuse to « subscribe every genuine text," — only let 
his own imagination decide what texts are genuine, and what 
are not. Your society will " subscribe" to the texts about bap- 
tism, the Lord's supper, the resurrection, the Divinity of Christ, 
and yet deny the plain and obvious doctrine of these texts. You 
will adopt the words, but not the obvious sense of Scripture. 
£4ow, it is of little consequence, comparatively, what words 
you use in preaching or in writing ; the doctrine, the meaning 
is that at which your hearers and readers look. And it is this 
and not your terms (for you use, or rather abuse, many Bible 
terms) that we condemn. We do therefore desire something 
more than that you should quote the texts of Scripture — we de- 
sire you to admit and preach the plain and obvious meaning of 
those texts. You might as well subscribe to the Koran as the 
Scriptures, if you have no regard to the sense of either. The 
words of Scripture, from an essential defect of language, are 
capable of being " wrested" to a very erroneous and injurious 
sense ; now, the only way to know whether you use the text in 
a natural or unnatural sense, is to require of you the adoption of 
other unequivocal and explanatory terms, 

Obj. 3. "If God be one, he cannot be three persons." An- 
swer. If God be one, he cannot be two persons, — and now 
where is your « Divinity of Christ?" It is no more " impos- 
sible," "contradictory" or "incomprehensible," that there 
should be three in one, than that there should be two in one ; 
and you must hold to two in one or renounce the Divinity of 
Christ, which you say you " reverently acknowledge." Please 



333 

reconcile the Divinity of Christ as a distinct person from the 
Father, with the doctrine of but one person in the Godhead? 

Obj. 4. "Three distinct and separate persons are three 
Gods " Answer. Upon the same principle, two distinct and 
separate persons are two Gods. And if you will show how Jesus 
Christ and the Father, two separate persons, can be two and 
yet one, I will show you how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost 
can be three and yet one. 

Obj. 5. " The term < Trinity' was not invented till the church 
had made great advances in the apostacy.'' Suppose this as- 
sertion was true, (which certainly is not,) it is a matter of no 
consequence ; we are not disputing about a term, but a doctrine, 
which is as old as revelation. The term, however, was in- 
vented at a season, when modes of self-defence are usually in- 
vented, when the enemy threatened an attack. When Arius, 
Noetus, Sabellius and others, under pretence of preaching 
Christianity, began to undermine Christianity, it was neces- 
sary for Christians to start a countermine. This and other 
terms on the subject would have never been invented but in 
self-defence. They were invented by men who feared God and 
reverenced the Bible much more than their adversaries, and were 
found the only contrivances, by which they could defeat and 
baffle their subtle foes. We may say of creeds what the Apostle 
says of laws, they were i6 not made for the righteous, but for 
the lawless and disobedient." The wicked, if left to themselves, 
would never make laws to hamper and punish themselves ; 
neither would heretics, who wish to believe any thing and 
every thing, ever invent creeds to tie them up to truth. Laws 
never injure honest men, neither do creeds trouble a Christian. 
The public will soon see, that tlje way and the only way to dis- 
cover your real doctrine, is to compel you to express yourselves 
in the unequivocal terms so long used in the church of Christ. 

Obj. 6. " Dr. Maclaine condemns the use of the term." Dr. 
Maclaine shows through that whole work, that he was not well 
affected towards the doctrine of the Trinity, and this will readily 
account for his objection to the term — « But Mosheim condemns 
the controversy, and says it arose from vain curiosity, &c." An- 
swer. It did arise from «* vain curiosity,' 1 not of Christians, how- 
ever, but oiJlrius and others. For had not heretics begun to spe- 
culate on this mysterious subject, and to publish their "vain 
curiosity" to the world, the orthodox would have invented no 
terms to prevent similar curiosity in future. 

Real Christians never feeljustified in indulging any curiosity 
on the subject ; but wish to rest in the plain doctrine of the 
Bible. And here they would have rested but for the « vain 
curiosity" of heretics. On tiie subject of a Trinity, Christians 



33* 

have never had but one creed, the Nicene or Athanasian creed. 
The words chosen one thousand five hundred years ago by 
above three hundred representatives from Europe, Asia and 
Africa, to express the views of the universal church on this 
momentous subject, have served to express (not originate) the 
sentiments of the church ever since. On the other hand " it is 
worthy of notice," (says « Adams' Rel. World Displayed," Art. 
Arianism) " that the friends of Arianism drew up seventeen 
different Confessions of Faith within forty years after they had 
rejected the Nicene doctrine, and after all would abide, by none 
of them." From the day they began to exercise their « vain 
curiosity," they had no rest, they could not fix a creed, until 
at length they became sick of creeds, and left their people to 
float about between the Scylla of Arianism and the Charybdis 
of Socinianism. Remember, the orthodox exercise no curiosity 
on this subject ; all the curiosity is on the side of those who 
will set reason to speculate on matters of pure revelation. 

Obj. 7. « It is an incomprehensible doctrine, and to talk or 
write on the subject is to darken counsel by words without 
knowledge." Does « Amicus/' never talk of things he does 
not fully comprehend ? Perhaps he has read Materia Medica. 
And did he find no mysteries in medicine ? Few words are more 
commonly used than « fever," and does « Amicus" know any 
thing more about it than a few of its properties, causes and 
effects ? Does he perfectly comprehend the nature of the thing 
itself? Can he explain all the wonders of pharmacy and die- 
mistry ? If he does not know every thing about them, according 
to his own doctrine he should not say any thing about, them, 
lest he darken counsel ! The cook in the kitchen cannot tell 
why fire makes the kettle boil, or how salt keeps the meat from 
corruption, but she does not doubt the fact, nor cease to talk 
about it day by day. A child cannot explain why a stone falls 
downward rather than upward, but he can admit the fact as well 
as if he knew the whole mystery of gravitation. So we can 
understand and talk about the fact of the existence of three in 
one in the Godhead, because itris revealed, without presuming 
or wishing to understand the mode of existence. 

Obj. 8. « The argument drawn from one of the numerous 
anomalies of the Hebrew language is below criticism." This 
is a very convenient way of getting over an argument which 
you cannot refute. Thus some people get over the account of 
the Fall, " it is all a figure, an allegory." And others, over the 
doctrine of everlasting punishment, " it is all a figure an hyper- 
bole, &c." Thus Dr. Clarke, when he cannot manage certain 
texts which assert the divinity of Christ, sets them aside at 
once, with « Oh it is only a manner of speaking !" So when I 



335 

show an Unitarian that the name of God is plural, his titles 
plural, his attributes plural, that he speaks of himself in the 
plural number, and inspired writers speak of Him as a plural 
Being, « Oh it is all an anomaly, an irregularity of speech !" 
Unless *' Amicus" can show other passages paralled to these — » 
unless he can prove that the rule of all other languages — that a 
verb must agree in number with its nominative, and an adjective 
with its substantive, does not hold good in the Hebrew, he must 
acknowledge that the Bible teaches God is a plural Being. That 
the ancient Jews understood the passages I have quoted, as 
alloying to the Trinity, is abundantly evident from their ancient 
commentaries, though they now deny the doctrine from oppo- 
sition to the Gospel. As " Amicus" is not satisfied with the 
four arguments brought in my last to prove this point, I add, 

5. That God is a plural Being is evident from Prov. ix. 10, 
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ; the know- 
ledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." Here it is evident 
to all acquainted with the reduplicative style of Scripture, that 
'* the Lord" and the " Holy Ones" refer to the same Being. 
The inference is irresistible, — in God is a plurality in unity. 
The same thing is taught, Hos. xi. 12, « Judah yet ruleth with 
God, and is faithful with the Saints/ 9 or as it ought to have been 
rendered, the "Holy Ones.'' 

6. In Isa. xlviii. 16, a person who calls himself in the 12th 
and 13th verses, the « First and the Last," who says, his hands 
«« laid the foundation of the earth," and who of course is God, 
says : "and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me." 
Here is either more than one God, or more than one person in 
the Godhead : take your choice. But as you have such objection 
to Hebrew anomalies, I will bring you some from another lan- 
guage. As you dislike the Old Testament so much, I will see 
if you like the New any better. 

7. What think you of John i. 1, " In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God : the 
same was in the beginning with God." Now here is certainly 
a plurality of something, and if the name «* God" denote & person, 
here is a plurality of persons in the Godhead. For it is said : 
« God was with God." Now one cannot be with another, unless 
he be in some respect distinct and separate. You have no alter- 
native but to deny the divinity of Christ or admit a Divine 
plurality. 

8. Again ; is not Jesus Christ equal with God the Father ? Phil. 
ii. 6, f Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ 
Jesus ; who being in the form of God thought it no robbery 
to be equal with God." And again in the 10th verse : « at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and 



356 

things in earth, and things under the earth ; and every tongue 
confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.* 5 Here 
is a person « in the form of God," — " equal with God" — con- 
fessed to be « Lord," the object of universal worship, and yet 
distinct from •• God the Father." Now either Jesus Christ is not 
God, or there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. The same 
doctrine is taught in the parallel passage : Zech. xiii. 7, 
« Awake, O sword, against my shepherd ; smite the man that is 
my fellow, (i. e. equal,) saith the Lord of Hosts." Here the 
(s Lord of Hosts" speaks of another who is his " fellow," or 
equal, in other words, who is also God ! There is one way, and 
but one way of getting over this argument, and that is by styl- 
ing the whole an " anomaly !" 

9. God the Father speaks to the Son as God : Heb. i. 8, « And 
unto the Son he saith, (God saith,) thy throne, God, is forever 
and ever. God, even thy God, hath anointed thee. And thou 
Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundations of the earth." 
Now it is evident from this passage, first, that the Father is 
God, and that the Son is God : and secondly, that God the Son 
is a distinct person from God the Father, or such an address 
would be absurd. Both the Old and New Testament teach that 
there is but one God ; but both the Old and New Testament 
teach that there is more than one called by all the Divine names 
and titles, and set forth as an object of supreme worship. It is 
impossible, therefore, for any believer in the inspiration of 
Scripture, to doubt there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. 

The public will judge whether I have not answered all his 
arguments ; let them now observe if he answers one of mine. 

PAUL. 

—mi. "~ " imiii i 

Seventh-day, 7th mo. 27, 1822. 

LETTER XXXII. 

" PaganiSxM, atheism, popery and deism, have each had 
their day; each has fought its battle with the Gospel, and has 
left the field." So says my opponent ; and happy would it be for 
the world, were it only half true. Paganism yet sways her 
ebon sceptre over a large majority of mankind, and will long 
reign triumphant, unless attacked by other than the puny wea- 
pons of my opponent. It needs other power besides « the lite- 
ral and logical sense of the Scriptures," to change the heart, 
and give a victory to the pure spirit of the Gospel. If atheism 
and deism have « left the field," never to return, it is cause of 
rejoicing ; but I am much mistaken if the Gospel soldier will 
not be again called to buckle on his harness and engage these 



337 

enemies of Christianity ! When I read religious newspapers, 
and observe almost every enterprize of a religious nature, 
coupled with a scheme for raising money, a « cunningly devis- 
ed" plan of beggary, and contrast these proceedings with those 
of our Lord and his disinterested disciples, methinks I see the 
enemy scattering widely and thickly the seeds of infidelity and 
unbelief. As for popery, whilst it has so many defenders 
amongst Protestants, whilst its errors and absurdities are pub- 
licly vindicated by my opponent, I can see little ground for the 
assertion, that it ki has left the field." They who defend the 
doctrine of " three distinct and separate persons in the God- 
head," are striving to maintain popery in one of its distinguish- 
ing characteristics. 

" The great enemy of truth at the present day is Unitarian- 
ism." So says « Paul ;" his assertion, however, is gratui- 
tous ! it is miserably begging the question ! — If by the term 
" Unitarianism," we are to understand simply a belief in but 
one God, I think it will puzzle «« Paul" to prove this belief in- 
imical to truth. Every man who believes there is but one God 9 
is in fact a Unitarian in the strict sense of that term ; he that 
believes in the existence of three Gods may be a Trinitarian 
or Tritheist, it is not much matter which term we use, they 
mean the same thing, as may very easily be proved ! ! ! 

But, says "Paul," Unitarianism "inculcates none of the 
peculiar doctrines of Christianity. It professes to receive the 
Bible as a revelation, but tears it to pieces by biblical criticism !" 
Here again he begs the question ! Is not the doctrine of one 
God a peculiar doctrine of the Bible r — And is there any sect 
who tear the Bible to pieces by biblical criticism, more than 
the Trinitarians ? If biblical criticism be a crime, I know of 
no people who are more guilty of it than they ; nor do I know 
any people who take greater liberties with the Scriptures ! 

My opponent has made a pompous display of his learning in 
a tedious account of what Unitarians do not believe. This state- 
ment, which is wholly foreign to the point in discussion, is a 
religious fraud. In the first place, as applied to Unitarians ge- 
nerally, it is untrue. In the next place, it is intended to con- 
found the religious society I advocate, with others who hold 
different sentiments — an attempt unworthy the character of a 
professor of religion, but more odious when coming from a pro- 
fessed minister of the Gospel. It is, however, what we might 
expect from such a source. Theological seminaries may make 
preachers, but they can neither confer Divine grace, nor those 
amiable tempers which characterize a genuine minister of the 
Gospel. 

" The cardinal principle of this system, the rejection of the 
43 



33S 

Trinity, Amicus in your name has already avowed ; you will 
henceforth stand before the Christian public with the name of 
« Unitarianism' on your front." Now, if « Unitarianism" mean 
simply the belief in only one divine Being, we shall not object to 
this application of it. It is certainly much more rational, as 
well as more Scriptural than the »« Tritheism" of my opponent. 
The idea of one Mmighty, Omnipresent, Infinite Being, seems 
to us to be accordant with Scripture and reason. The idea of 
three, with neither ! ! The word <* Unitarian," dressed out as 
it pleases my opponent, looks ill indeed ! but ** Tritheism" 
looks worse, in its own naked deformity ! ! ! 

I would not willingly brand the system of my opponent with 
a worse name than it deserves; but I think it so evidently 
" Tritheism," or a belief in three Gods, that no unprejudiced 
person can doubt it for a moment. In order to show that this 
sentiment is not expressed without due reflection, I will state a 
few arguments in its defence. The first of which I will extract 
from the writings of the celebrated William Penn, founder of 
Pennsylvania, published in 1668, under the title of "The 
Sandy Foundation Shaken." 

« If there be three distinct and separate persons [in the God- 
head,] then three distinct and separate substances, because 
every person is inseparable from its own substance, and as there 
is no person that is not a substance, in common acceptation 
among men, so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein ; and 
since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, 
(which their opinion necessitates them to confess,) then, unless 
the Father, Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings, they 
must be three distinct substances, and consequently three dis- 
tinct Gods." 

66 It is further proved, if it be considered, that either the di- 
vine persons we, finite or infinite; if the first, then something 
finite is inseparable to the infinite substance, whereby some- 
thing finite is in God ! — If the last, then three distinct Infi- 
nites, three Omnipotents, three Eternals, and so three Gods ! ! ! 

* If each person be God, and that God subsists in three per- 
sons, then in each person are three persons or Gods, and from 
three they will increase to nine, and so ad infinitum, 

"But if they will deny the three persons or subsistences to be 
infinite, (for so there would unavoidably be three Gods,) it will 
follow that they must be finite, and so the absurdity is not abat- 
ed from what it was ! — for that of one substance having three 
subsistences, is not a greater [absurdity] than that an infinite 
Being should have three finite modes of subsisting ! But though 
that mode which is finite cannot answer to a substance that is 
infinite 5. yet, to try if we can make their principle to consist 



339 

let us conceive that three persons which may be finite separate- 
ly, make up an infinite conjunctly : however this will follow* 
that they are no more incommunicable or separate, nor pro- 
perly subsistences, but a subsistence : for the infinite substance 
cannot find a subsistence in any one or two, therefore [it must 
find it in them] jointly. And here I am willing to overlook 
finiteness in the Father, Son, and Spirit, which this doctrine 
must suppose!!! 

" Again ; if these three distinct persons are one with some one 
thing, as Trinitarians say they are with the Godhead, then they 
are not incommunicable among themselves, but so much the 
contrary as to be one in the place of another ! For if that the 
only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is 
Christ the Father ! So, if that one God be the Son, and the 
Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son ; and so round. 
Nor is it possible to stop — or that it should be otherwise ; since, 
if the Divine nature be inseparable from the three persons, or 
communicated to each, and each person have the whole divine 
nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son— • 
unless the Godhead be as incommunicable to the persons as 
they are reported to be among themselves ; or, that the three 
persons, have distinctly allotted them, such a proportion of the 
divine nature as is not communicable to each other, which is 
alike absurd ! Much more might be said to manifest the gross 
contradiction of this Trinitarian doctrine, as vulgarly received, 
but I must be brief.'* 

If we look into the Athanasian Creed, as it is called, we 
shall find the existence of three distinct and separate persons 
in the Godhead asserted and defended ; to each of which, in 
their separate capacity, is attributed eternity, incomprehensi- 
bility, omnipotence, equality ! Now, if they be distinct and se- 
parate, and possess these attributes, then, it inevitably follows, 
that there are three Gods ! It only aggravates the absurdity to 
tell us they are one ; for if they be distinct and separate, this is 
impossible ! ! ! 

Now, how do the Trinitarians get over these palpable conse- 
quences of their contradictory scheme ? Why, after writing 
volumes in its defence, and finding themselves swamped at last, 
they gravely tell us, « it is a mystery ," that is, it is impossible 
to understand it ! — This is all very well, and if they had rested 
here, modestly professing a belief of what they acknowledge 
they know nothing, we might pity, but could not blame them ! 
«A man is accepted according to that which he hath, and not 
according to that which he hath not." But when, instead of 
this, they take a different course, anathematizing and sending 
to eternal perdition, all who cannot believe both mysteries ari<I 



contradictory propositions, they lay themselves open to the me- 
rited censure of that Apostolic rebuke : « Who art thou that 
judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth 
or falleth." Rom. xiv 4. 

" Paul" thinks he has answered all my arguments. It may 
be so; 1 have not taken the pains to review them — but 1 will 
venture to say he has not refuted one of them. It is easy, in 
" Paul's" way, to answer an argument ; to refute one is quite 
another tiling! Let us have a specimen of his mode of answer- 
ing me. — In a former number 1 asserted, " if God be one he 
cannot be three persons." Now, how does *' Paul" refute this 
plain truth? He does not even attempt it! His whole drift is to 
make Amicus a believer in absurdities as well as himself! "If 
God," says he, " be one, he cannot be two persons. It is no 
more impossible, contradictory, or incomprehensible, that there 
should be three in one, than that there should be two in one> and 
you must hold to tw 7 o in one, or renounce the divinity of Christ." 
Now, if it can be shown, that God and Christ the divine Word, 
are one — the same Divine power — the same Creator — the same 
omnipotent all-wise Being, then it will appear that we are un- 
der no necessity either Si to hold to two in one, or to renounce 
the divinity of Christ !" There cannot be a better evidence for 
this purpose than our Lord himself, who, speaking of his own 
divinity, says : « I and my Father are one." John x. 30. The 
Evangelist, in a very clear manner, tells us the same truth, 
where he says : « In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God." John i. 1. These texts 
show very clearly, not *« how two separate persons can be two 
and yet one," but that God the Creator, and Christ the Sa- 
viour, are, as William Penn expresses it, i( the same one, holy, 
just, merciful, almighty and eternal God." For Christ, as the 
Apostle affirms, « was God manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 
16, "He was the power of God and the wisdom of God." 
1 Cor. 1. « He was Emmanuel, God with us." Mat. i. 23. He 
was, in fine, « the only wise God our Saviour." Jude 25. That 
power by which all nature was called into existence, is that 
same power which raised Lazarus from the grave, restored the 
withered arm, and blasted the fruitless fig tree. 

" God," said the Apostle, " was manifest in the flesh." This 
flesh, which was born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pon- 
tius Pilate, laid in the grave, and by Divine power raised again, 
was no part of the Deity ; it was mortal flesh. This is evident 
in thati* died! The Apostle confirms this sentiment, where he 
says : Heb. ii. 16, iv. 17, " He," the divine Word, "took not 
upon him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of 
Abraham, and was tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 



341 

" He was of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh." Acts 
ii. 30. It appears to me, that many have fallen into confusion 
and error, by failing to make a distinction between the divine 
Word and the means by which it was so marvellously manifested 
to the world ! By keeping this distinction always in view, the 
most difficult Scripture passages, relating to Christ, are easily 
solved. 

At the close of my last communication I observed, that « the 
argument of my opponent drawn from one of the numerous 
anomalies of the Hebrew language, was below criticism ;" I 
think so still — but as there may be some who think there is 
good argument in the sound of Hebrew anomalies, and bad 
Latin, I will, for their sake, spend a few minutes with a view to 
dissipate such an illusion ! 

« Paul" says, " God is a plural Being." — Now if this term 
conveys any definite idea to my readers, I confess their percep- 
tion is more acute than mine ! — To me it appears perfectly in- 
congruous — a contradiction in itself! — Plural means more than 
one. A Being is but one ! Now can any thing be more than one, 
and onty one at the same time ? The proposition involves a gross 
absurdity ! ! ! 

In order, however, to make us relish absurdities, he attempts 
to garnish them with Hebrew Scripture ! But what do his ar- 
guments prove ? Nothing at all, as I shall endeavour to demon- 
strate. He tells us Elohim (God) is a plural noun, and he finds 
it nominative to a singular verb. Now, what is there wonder- 
ful in all this ? He ought to know, if he knows any thing about 
the Hebrew language, that it is a circumstance by no means 
uncommon, to find plural nouns used with singular verbs, and 
vice versa ; for the truth of which 1 refer him to Buxtorf, Park- 
hurst, Castellus, Robertson, Simonis or any other good writer 
on the Hebrew language. If « Path's" theological notions 
have no better foundation than such anomalies, they will be 
very easily blown away ! as he may rest assured, that Moses 
did not much concern himself with the niceties of modern 
grammarians ! 

But how does «Patj:l" know that Elohim is a plural 
noun ? If Elohim be plural, how does it happen that the hay 
be not dropped ? Every novice in Hebrew learning knows, that 
singular nouns ending in hay throw it away before the plural 
termination yod mem; as is the case where "Gods" is in- 
tended. Exod. xv. 11, (i Who is like unto thee Lord, among 
the gods.'' In this place the word Elim without the hay is 
used. El is the singular as well as Elohim, and when plu- 
ral, Elim. Elohim appears to be used as a masculine singu- 
lar noun — the yod mem constitute it an hemantic noun. Some 



3ig 

copies have it without the yod, for the yod as well as the 
vauj' is often a masoretic point — in the one case, a long chi- 
nch, in the other a cholem. Moreover, if Elohim be used 
to indicate ** three persons in the Godhead," how does my 
learned opponent account for the use of tiiis word in reference 
to an idol? as in Exod. xxii. 20, <* He that sacrificeth unto 
any god, (Jaeiohim) save unto the Lord only," &c. 1 Kings 
xviii. 27, *' Elijah mocked them, and said — cry aloud, for he 
is a God/' &c. (Elohim.) — See also Judges xvi. 23, and many 
other passages ! And, how again, does *< Paul" account for the 
use of this term in reference to aman, as in Exod. xxi. 6, and 
in other places ! In this passage, where our translators, with- 
out any warrant from the context, have rendered the word 
plural, Elohim is used for a judge ! Now, what are we to 
infer from all this? Are we to conclude that idols and men are 
Trinities ? 

With respect to the passage quoted by my opponent, John 
xxiv. 19, in which the adjective « holy" is plural, it is only ne- 
cessary to oppose to it, 1 Sam. vi. 20, and Psalm xcix. 9, where 
the same adjective is connected with « Elohim" in the singular 9 
to shew that nothing of the kind intimated by « Paul," could 
have been intended by the inspired writers ; but that it is 
plainly an idiom, an irregularity of the language, which had 
not then been made to submit to the arbitrary rules of modern 
grammarians. 

That Elohim sometimes occurs as a plural noun, I shall 
not deny, but this is only one among the many proofs of the 
irregularity of the Hebrew language! « Elohim is used with 
adjectives, pronouns, and verbs, both plural and singular ! See 
Judges viii. 33, — 1 Kings xi. 5, 33, where it is applied without 
any change to a goddess, Baalberith, the idol of the Shechem- 
ites and Astarte, or Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians. 

That must be a weak cause indeed, which requires for its 
support, the grammatical construction of a language, replete 
with so many anomalies. If, as "Paul" asserts, a plural noun 
be used to shew, that God is a plural Being, and that plural 
noun be nominative to a singular verb, to shew the unity of this 
plurality, how does it happen, that in other places, the same 
noun is used with a plural verb as in Gen. xx. 13 ? Instead 
therefore of proving, what my opponent wished, this fact alone 
is sufficient to overturn his whole argument ! Had there been 
a design on the part of the inspired penmen, by the use of a 
plural noun with a singular verb, to teach the doctrine of "three 
persons in one God," the evidence of that design would be uni- 
form and invariable — the contrary clearly proves the absence 
of any design of the kind. But if they had such a design, they 



343 

were extremely deficient in a main point; for if they prove 
any thing about plurality of Gods, (or persons, if" Paul" pre- 
fer the term,) they as much prove five, or Jive thousand, as they 
prove " three," since there is not a word in any of the pas- 
sages implying three/ 

I will now recur to some of « Paul's" other arguments, 
which seem intended to prove that Moses was mistaken when 
he said : "Hear O Israel, JEHOVAH our God is one JEHO- 
VAH." Deut. vi. 4. in his proof No. 4, Letter xxx. he says : 
" The person who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, 
(Gen. xviii. 1.) and who is called JEHOVAH fourteen times 
in that single chapter, is spoken of in the xixth chap. ver. 24, 
as a distinct person from JEHOVAH in Heaven." Thus in his 
gross and carnal conception he makes one JEHOVAH to 
stand upon earth, and call down fire from another distinct JE- 
HOVAH in heaven ! — As if he, who *< fills heaven and earth, 
whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain," and who is there- 
fore equally present in all places, could be divided ! ! ! — As this 
is an absurdity and impossibility, « Paul" consequently be- 
lieves in a plurality of Gods! If « Paul" will be " honest" to 
himself, he must perceive, that so far as he had any definite 
idea, when writing the above paragraph, it was that of at least 
two distinct Gods, the One in heaven, (somewhere in the clouds, 
I presume, as that is where the fire and brimstone seems to have 
come from,) the other on the earth, this little planet, this speck 
in the immensity of God's works ! ! ! 

From the sentiment expressed by « Paul" in the above re- 
cited passage, it is undeniably evident that the " persons" which 
constitute his compound Deity, are finite ! One can be in one 
place, whilst the other is in another I And as he is pleased to 
allow his « triune God" the attribute of infinity, it follows of 
course that three finite persons can make an infinite one 1 1 i Ad- 
mirable logic ! 

" The name JEHOVAH, it is well known, implies self-exis- 
tence, independence, immutability and eternity, and is there- 
fore the incommunicable name of the only God." So says 
"Paul!" and yet he tells us that the JEHOVAH to whom 
Abraham prayed, is a distinct person from JEHOVAH in 
heaven ! of course, there must be two self-existent, indepen- 
dent, immutable and eternal Jehovahs ! ! ! 

" But why has God plural titles, and plural attributes, if He 
be not a plural Being?" That is, why has God more titles than 
one, or more attributes than one, if he be not a compound Being; 
if he be not three persons, and yet not three persons, but one per- 
son? If there be any meaning in this question, it is, that plu- 
rality of titles or of attributes implies a compound mode of ex» 



344 

istenee ! And so, when we find a man who has the attributes of 
understanding, will, and memory, and the titles of L. L. D. F. 
R. S. F. S. A. M. P. &c. attached to his name, we are to con- 
sider him a plural Being — a kind of a trinity ! ! ! 

Upon " this infinitely important" kind of logic, « Paul" 
thinks "the whole Christian system hangs." Amicus has a 
better opinion of the Christian system, than to suppose it hangs 
upon absurdities. " The divinity, the atonement, the interces- 
sion of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the inspiration 
of the sacred penmen, and hope of salvation" through Christ, 
are all consistent with the unity of God — they were believed 
by the primitive church, long before the doctrine of three per- 
sons in one God w 7 as invented, and they will remain to be the 
faith and consolation of the experimental Christian, when it is 
swept away among the other errors and inventions of popery 
and the popish church ! 

" We acknowledge [the doctrine of three persons making 
one person] is a mystery I" If he had been candid enough to 
acknowledge it was an absurdity, a contradictory proposition, 
his cause w T ould not have been more injured, than by his at- 
tempts to defend it ! 

" We rely for proof solely on revelation, and only use reason 
to determine the grammatical and logical sense of that revela- 
tion." It appears, however, that he relied upon the revelation 
of Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria, instead of the Bible! 
and has used or rather abused his reason in the defence of 
ungrammatical and illogical propositions, "that three are one 
and one is three, and yet that three are not one nor one three. 

" We shall not attempt to prove the unity of the Deity, but 
take that for granted." But no sooner does he take it for grant- 
ed, than he attempts to prove that the Deity subsists in three dis- 
tinct and separate persons ! all having self-existence, indepen- 
dence, immutability and eternity ! ! ! 

"We shall not attempt to prove that the word 'person? 
when applied to the Deity means precisely the same thing as 
when applied to men, but simply, that no other word will do as 
well to express the distinction between Father, Son, and Spi- 
rit." — « Paul" has done well to tell us what the term person 
does not mean! But he would have done better if he had told 
us what it does mean ! It means, I suppose, an indefinite some- 
thing, for Trinitarians to use as a kind of trumpet, through 
which to cry " heresy," and defame their sober Christian 
neighbours! But is it not surprising that those orthodox pro- 
fessors who pretend to make the Bible " the supreme and only 
standard of faith and practice," who tell us about the plenary 
inspiration of the Scriptures, should have the boldness to insi- 



345 

nuate, that this supreme standard, this only rule, and the inspi- 
red penmen, are all so defective, as to give us no other word 
that will do as well as a term of their own invention — and which, 
after all, that champion of Trinitarianism, Dr. Miller, tells us 
he does not understand ? 

The other arguments of « Paul" shall be answered in a 
future number, if life and health permit Want of room and a 
fear of « prolixity" prevents me from doing more at this time : — 
Yet I have said enough to shew, that henceforth the Trinita- 
rians will stand before the Christian public with the name of 
TRITHEISM on their front ! AMICUS. 



Saturday, August 3, 182%. 
LETTER XXXII. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

« Ml men should honour the Son, even as they honour t AeFATHER.f 

John v. 23. 

Christianity is distinguished from Polytheism by the be- 
lief of one God ; from Mahomedanism, Judaism and Deism by 
the belief that this one God exists in three persons. As to the 
followers of the Arabian imposter, it is well known that the 
Trinity is the greatest object of their opposition ; and it is 
also a fact, that the prevalence of Sabellianism in those once 
Christian countries, was one occasion of Mahomet's success. 
The Jews, as is abundantly evident from their ancient writings, 
once held the Trinity. Even after the coming of Christ, in the 
second century, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, the compiler of their 
ancient doctrines, sums up their views of God in these words : 
" God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Three in 
Unity, One in Trinity." But in later periods, from opposition 
to the divinity of Christ they have been led to deny the Tri- 
nity. That all Deists oppose this doctrine, I need not say. If 
therefore it be any argument in your favour, you certainly 
have all the Mahomedans, Jews, Deists, and Pagans in the 
world on your side ! As an evidence how little difference there 
is on this and other points between Unitarians and Mahome- 
tans, Leslie has preserved in his " Theological Tracts" a let- 
ter from the former to the Moorish ambassador then at London, 
proposing an union with the latter. But with the Bible on our 
side we have no fear of the event. 

I have frequently charged you with denying every peculiar 
44 



doctrine of the Gospel, and " Amicus" asks: "Is not the be- 
lief in one God a doctrine peculiar to the Gospel?" I answer, 
in the Trinitarian sense, Yes ; but in the Unitarian sense, £Jo : 
for all the infidel sects above mentioned are thorough in the 
belief, that God exists in one person. 

It is an occurrence so uncommon for «« Amicus" to notice 
my arguments, that I am bound in politeness to notice his re- 
plies. 

Obj. 1. He has a long and learned argument to prove that 
JIUim is not a plural but a singular noun. As I write for plain 
English people, I shall not enter into a learned criticism, which 
few could understand ; but in confirmation of my former as- 
sertion, would simply remark, 1. Our translators render it 
** gods" nearly two hundred times. Any one who will turn to 
Judges x. 6, will find what « Amicus" calls a singular noun 
rendered « gods" five times in a single verse : " And the chil- 
dren of Israel served the gods (Aleim) of Syria, and the gods 
of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children 
of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines." 2. It is nomina- 
tive to a plural verb. Gen. xxxv. 7, " He built an altar there 
and called the place El Bethel, because there God appeared 
unto him" (literally the Aleim were revealed unto him.) Here 
the verb « appeared" is plural. And I defy " Amicus" to quote 
an instance in any language of a noun nominative to a plural 
verb, when the noun does not contain the idea of plurality. 
The name « Aleim," therefore, does teach that there is a plu- 
rality in the Godhead. 3. It has plural adjectives. Deut. iv. 7, 
" What nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them ?" 
Here the adjective « nigh" (in Heb.) is plural, agreeing with 
Aleim. 4. Parkhurst, whom *' Amicus" particularly recom- 
mends as 6 < a good writer on the Hebrew language," says ex- 
pressly that Aleim is a « plural noun, denoting the ever blessed 
Trinity." He also refers to the Jewish Talmudists to prove that 
they held the same idea. As to ** feimonis," another author of 
whom « Amicus" speaks, I have not been so happy as ever be- 
fore to hear his name. (Can it be that this profound Hebrew 
scholar is so ignorant of Latin as to mistake a genitive for a no- 
minative case, and after all by this term mean nothing more 
nor less than Father Simon of France ?) 5. The Septuagint 
translators render the word Aleim by the Greek word theoi 
(gods) about one hundred and eighty times, v. Trommius' Con- 
cordance. Yet when applied to the true God, to remind the 
Gentiles of the divine Unity, like our English translators, they 
have always rendered it theos (God.) 6. Lastly, to remove all 
doubt, we have the infallible authority of our Lord himself. 
Johnx. 35, quoting from Ps.lxxxii. % and 6, he renders Aleim 



347 

*gods." *« If he called them gods to whom the word of God 
came," &c. This is decisive. It is therefore a plural name. And 
if there he any meaning in the name which the Holy Spirit has 
applied to the Supreme, He is a plural Being. « But the inspir- 
ed writers use this term sometimes as nominative to- a singular, 
and sometimes ^plural verb, which shows they had no design to 
teach plurality." «< It shows they intended to teach both plurality 
and unity in God, and not the one without the other. — « But this 
name is sometimes applied to an idol, and sometimes to a 
man; does this prove that these are a Trinity ?" Answer. Just 
so the English titles «' lord" and *» god*' are applied to noblemen 
and to Satan. (He is called the « god of this world.'') Does 
this prove that earls and dukes and devils have all the attributes 
of the Supreme! The Hebrew, like the English terms, are so 
applied by a sort of accommodation. 

Obj. 2. « Plural titles applied to God no more prove him a 
plural Being, than more titles than one affixed to a man's name 
prove that man a plural being." Here he purposely confounds 
a plural title with a number of different titles ! The Meim, for in- 
stance, are called, as I have before proved, « Makers,"" Crea- 
tors," « Watchers," « Holy Ones," which to me is proof of a 
plurality. He thinks it no more a proof of plurality in God, 
than the titles of L. L. D. F. A. S. M. P. doctor, esquire, &c. 
affixed to a man's name prove him a plural being. Who does not 
see the quibble I Call a man, an individual, * c doctors," esquires" 
or any other title in the plural number, and you will at once 
see the absurdity. Common sense says such titles imply a plu- 
rality wherever they are affixed ; and as plural titles are affixed 
to God, it is plain the Bible intended to teach that there is more 
than one in the Godhead. 

Obj. 3. ** The term * plural being' conveys no definite idea — 
is a contradiction in itself! Plural means more than one 9 a being 
is but one. Now can any thing be more than one and only one at 
the same time ! The proposition involves a gross absurdity !" 
This objection will be best answered by an example of his own. 
He says in page 343 : " That Aleim is sometimes used as 
a plural noun I shall not deny." A " plural noun !" Does this 
contain any definite idea ! Plural means more than one. A noun 
is but one. Now can a thing be more than one and only one at 
the same time! ««0 yes: the noun is not plural in the same 
sense in which it is singular." Neither is God. « The noun is 
singular in one respect and plural in another." We say the same 
of God. He is one in essence, plural as to persons. If there be 
no contradiction in the term " plural noun," there is none in the 
term «« plural being." 

Obj. 4. " Penn's Arguments." These are so much metaphy* 



6m 

sical nonsense ! /—unworthy of a distinct answer ! He first begs 
the question by supposing the three "persons" to be three 
"substances " and then exercises his "vain curiosity" in what 
he knows nothing about. If any one wishes to see his sophistry 
more clearly, let them substitute for the terms Father, Son and 
Spirit, the terms Power, Wisdom and Justice or any other 
Divine attributes that are evidently separate and distinct, and 
then say : <* These three are either so many distinct substances, 
or they are distinct nothings, 8fc." " These three are either 
finite or infinite.'* « These three are either one or many, &c. &c." 
and the conclusion in each case will be just as contrary to 
Scripture, to common sense and to fact, as when applied to the 
Trinity. One thing only I would mention — He says : « Unless 
the Father, Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings, they 
must be three distinct substances, and consequently three dis- 
tinct Gods." Now, as Penn did not hold them to be three dis- 
tinct «« substances,'' or << Gods," it is evident he held them to 
be three distinct nothings ! 

Obj. 5. "Paul in his comment on Ex. xix. 24, makes two 
Jehovahs, one on earth, the other in heaven." Answer. We 
made no such thing. We only inferred what every candid 
reader of the text and context must infer, that there are two 
called by that name. And as we know there is but one Jehovah, 
to reconcile Scripture with itself we must suppose these to be 
two persons in the one God. The text however will speak for 
itself. « Moses did not concern himself with the niceties of mo- 
dern grammarians !" This assertion is not only a dishonourable 
insinuation against the author of the Pentateuch, (supposing 
Moses to have written out of his own brain,) but is a profane 
reflection upon the Holy Spirit who directed the penman by 
a plenary inspiration ! If the Holy Spirit would not guard him 
on the subject of the Deity, what subject would be of sufficient 
importance to make him « nice" in his choice of words ? 

Obj. 6. « Two persons are as great an absurdity as three 
persons in the Godhead." Here, reader, you have what I have 
long asserted, and for which assertion I have been assailed with 
such an outcry of <* uncharitableness" — the denial of the divi- 
nity of Christ? *i Amicus" has told you, there is no divine per- 
son distinct from the Father ; of course no divine person to 
make atonement to the Father ; no divine person to intercede 
with the Father. You have no atonement but what has been 
made by an attribute, an office, a name, a « nothing ! !" 
unless you can rest on an atonement made by a mere man, by 
« fc mortalfiesh," which was " no part of the Deity ! !" How dif- 
ferent this from the language of the Bible ! Acts xx. 28, « Feed 
the church of God, which He purchased with his own blood," 



349 

j. e. which God purchased with his blood. Again ; 1 John iii. 
16, « Herein perceive we the love of God, that belaid down his 
life for us." And again; 1 Cor. ii. 8, "They crucified the 
Lord of Glory," — not a mere man, not 6i mortal flesh," but 
a Divine person ; — a person too who was not the Father, nor 
the Spirit, but the Son, one separate from both. What non- 
sense would you make of these passages : " Feed the church 
of God which a man purchased with his blood." « Herein per- 
ceive we the love of God that a man laid down his life for us," 
&c. Thus, Christians, they have taken away your Saviour. 
You have no atonement but what a man could make ; no righte- 
ousness but what a creature who owed obedience for himself could 
procure ; — no intercessor but a man who cannot be either omni- 
present, omniscient, or omnipotent to save. Moreover, the 
Lord hath said, «« Cursed is the man that trusteth in man." 
See, therefore, that you never « trust" in such a Saviour ! They 
have made a great noise about « Christ" and the « Holy Spi- 
rit," but you now see that they deny the very existence of both 
Son and Spirit ! — or which is the same thing, reduce the Son to 
a mere man, and the Spirit to a mere name, or as Penn calls it, 
a mere « nothing ! !" 

I have yet hardly commenced the direct arguments for the 
Trinity, and intended to have introduced a few more into this 
number ; but as I do not wish to impose upon the editor by oc- 
cupying a whole side of his paper, I will close my remarks at 
present by whispering in the reader's ear that system of doc- 
trine which you are fast evolving, and which will ere long fully 
appear. 

1. You hold that there is but one person in the Godhead : that 
the Son and Holy Ghost are only attributes or offices of the Fa- 
ther. 2. That the whole divine nature, Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost was united to the man Jesus. That he w r as honoured by 
a particular indwelling of the divinity, and therefore called 
Divine ; but that so far as he is distinct from the Father, Jesus 
Christ is a. creature, a mere man. 3. That there is no wrath in 
God, no vindicatory jiistice, of course no need of an atonement 
or satisfaction for sin. That the w T ord « atonement" means 
simply reconciliation, or the removal of hostility on our part. 
That « remission of sins" means nothing more than removing 
moral pollution or destroying the power of sin. 

4. That the Holy Spirit is a mere influence from God, called 
divine, because coming from God. What you understand by in- 
tercession, is simply the influence of the Spirit on our hearts, &c, 
&c. &c. This I have little doubt is substantially your scheme, 
so far as you have any scheme. In other words, you are Sabel= 



350 

Hans;—- you deny the personality and divinity of the Son and 
Spirit; — you reject the atonement, justification by vicarious 
righteousness, and every fundamental doctrine of the Gospel. 
As I have now shown that God is a plural Being, I will here- 
after, with leave of Providence, show that he is a Triune Being. 

PAUL. 

Seventh-day, StJi mo. 10, 1822. 

LETTER XXXIII. 

My opponent informs us, that " Christianity is distinguish- 
ed from Polytheism by the belief of one God." He might have 
added, it is distinguished from Tritheism or Trinitarian- 
ism by the same belief! The doctrine of "three distinct and 
separate persons in the Godhead" — of « three distinct eternal 
Spirits" — of " three distinct intelligent hypostases, each hav- 
ing his own distinct intelligent nature," is so palpably Trithe- 
ism, that it needs no demonstration. Even the M Jews, Ma- 
hometans, and deists," dark as they may be in religion, have 
yet too much light to embrace it. That the ** Jews" ever held 
the doctrine of the « Trinity," is a slander against them and all 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament ! 

« I have frequently charged you with denying every pecu- 
liar doctrine of the Gospel." That "Paul" has frequently 
so charged us is true, and much too true to allow him any claim 
to the character of a candid antagonist ! It has evidently been 
his aim, from the beginning of the present controversy, to vili- 
fy and defame us. I think I am safe in saying, that so much 
calumny and detraction has not issued from any one pen within 
the last century, as " Paul" has uttered against us ! ! Happily 
for the society I advocate, its character and religious sentiments 
are so generally known, that in most cases, the public are pre- 
pared to attribute his aspersions to their proper cause. — Is not 
a belief in the divinity of Christ, as the Saviour, Redeemer, 
and Mediator, the only means of salvation ; — in the divine in- 
spiration of the Apostles, the authenticity of the sacred wri- 
tings, the necessity of faith, repentance, the new birth ; of 
righteousness, sanctiiication and redemption through Christ. — 
I say, are not these peculiar doctrines of Christianity, and are 
they not fundamental principles of our society ? If they are, 
how can my opponent venture to charge us "with denving 
every peculiar doctrine of the Gospel ?" That his malice should 
so far outrun his judgment, indicates a loss of sight! If we do 
hut touch some men's interest, it seems to blind them to every 






351 

thing else. This is one of the consequences of a mercenary mi- 
nistry ! — « A thousand dollars a year" is sufficient to bribe some 
men, to publish falsehoods so gross, that hardly any man they 
meet is so ignorant as to believe them ! ! ! 

In pursuance of my design to answer all the arguments of 
my Tritheistical opponent, I will now proceed to notice : 

1st. His reply to my assertion, that " the Trinitarians are so 
split to pieces, and widely divided on this incomprehensible doc- 
trine, that it is hard to tell what is the commonly received doc- 
trine, or whether there be any such !" — That my readers might 
know the ground of this assertion, I stated the doctrine of Wa- 
terland, Howe, Owen, Pearson, Bull, Burnet, Wallis, Tillotson, 
and Watts, on this subject. Between the five first named, 
" Paul" thinks it will puzzle common readers to discover much 
diversity of sentiment ! Who he means by common readers, he 
does not inform us. Such I presume as have been accustomed 
to his leading strings; I think it will puzzle those who dare to 
think for themselves, to discover much similarity in the doctrines 
of the authors I have quoted. Burnet he disowns, calling his 
doctrine, though it be as clearly Trinitarian as any other *< an 
abomination." He has manifested unusual candor in admitting 
one species of Trinitarianism to be an abomination, although it 
will not be easy to show why it is more abominable than the 
rest ! — Wallis, Tillotson and Watts he does not object to ; of 
course he allows them the palm of orthodoxy ! Let us now com- 
pare these orthodox systems, and see if it " will puzzle com- 
mon readers to discover much diversity of sentiment between 
them !" 

<< Waterland" would be an Athanasian, only that he asserts 
the three Divine persons are independent upon each other, and 
is therefore more palpably a Tritheist, than even the Monk 
who wrote what is called the Athanasian Creed ! «• Howe" is 
unequivocally a believer in three Gods, as he supposes "there 
are three distinct eternal Spirits, or distinct intelligent hypostases, 
each having his own distinct intelligent nature." — «« Owen," 
** Pearson" and « Bull" differ both from Waterland and Howe — 
from Waterland, in that they make the Son and Holy Spirit 
dependent on the Father, as the stream on the fountain — from 
« Howe," in that they do not make the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost three distinct eternal Spirits, but three distinct some- 
things : not separated nor separable from the divinity, but ex- 
isting in it. «* Wallis" and " Tillotson," differ widely from 
them all, as they believe the distinction between the three per- 
sons is only modal. " Watts," with respect to the divine na- 
ture and its manifestation in the flesh, came nearer to the doc- 
trine of Scripture than any of them ! He maintained, that there 



352 

is "one Supreme God dwelling in the human nature of Christ-— 
that the divine Logos was the wisdom of God, and the Holy 
Spirit the divine Power." But he differed from the Athana- 
sians very widely on the subject of the human nature, or flesh 
born of the virgin Mary ; this he supposed to have existed the 
first of all creatures ! 

Now, i think our readers must be very uncommon indeed, if 
they can reconcile these schemes ! And as " Paui/' has admit- 
ted that eight out of the nine Trinitarians, whose schemes have 
been exhibited, are orthodox, my position remains untouched* 
6i The Trinitarians are so split to pieces, and widely divided on 
this incomprehensible doctrine, that it is hard to know what are 
the commonly received notions on this subject !" 

2d. His remarks on the statement I made concerning the 
unscriptural terms used by Trinitarians. In a former essay, I 
gave some account of the first invention of the terms " Trini- 
ty," — three persons in one God, &c. and by the finger of au- 
thentic history, pointed to the " deplorable consequences" of 
their introduction into the church ! — I showed that these terms 
were not to be found in the sacred writings — that they were 
the contrivance of fallible men — the work of Anti-christ. I 
argued, and I think fairly, that as they were never dictated by 
the Holy Spirit, they ought to be rejected ! — especially by those 
who believe the Scriptures to be our only rule. These objec- 
tions my opponent has the effrontery to call " puerile." — So 
then, it is puerile to make the Bible our only rule — it is quite 
hoyish to confine ourselves on doctrinal subjects to the language 
of divine inspiration. The impiety and inconsistency of such a 
sentiment from the pen of my opponent, will not, I am per- 
suaded, escape the observation of « common readers." 

But, says "Paul," « we are not disputing about the term 
[Trinity,] but about the doctrine. The term is a very happy 
one to express the three-one God ! ! Refute the doctrine, and we 
will renounce the term." But suppose there be no such God? 
how then ? This is the point in controversy. Prove the exist- 
ence of a compounded Deity, and we will not refuse the term. 
But if it be impossible that an infinite, omnipresent Being can be 
divided into parts, then the doctrine falls to the ground, and the 
term ought to fall with it, as it would be absurd to suppose that 
the doctrine expressed by that term, ever entered the minds of 
the inspired penmen ; so to refute it, will, I humbly believe, be 
no difficult task. A man must lay aside his reason before he 
can believe it — he must reject the Scriptures, as the only rule, 
before he can consistently tolerate it — he must have many es- 
sentials of a genuine papist, in order to swallow it. Transub- 
stantiation can be better defended by Scripture and reason^ 



353 

than the vulgar doctrine of " three persons in one God." — As 
to " Paul's'' renunciation of these terms, it can hardly be ex- 
pected whilst priestcraft and popery are prominent parts of his 
scheme ! ! 

3rd. That the term " Trinity" was invented when the church 
had made great advances into the apostacy, " Paul" denies ! 
but in so doing he denies the clear evidence of all ecclesiastical 
history. In a preceding number I quoted Mosheim to prove 
my position, and if it were .necessary, could easily produce 
abundant testimony further to corroborate it. The other un- 
scriptural terms used by Trinitarians, he says, were invented 
by men who found them " the only contrivances, by which they 
could defeat and baffle their subtle foes." Now how could my 
opponent so effectually vilify the scriptures, or cast a greater 
odium on divine inspiration, than by asserting, that these un- 
scriptural terms «* were the only means, by which the subtle 
foes of Christianity could be defeated and baffled ?" — Was God 
incompetent to carry on his own work ?< — or, had the Apostles 
no occasion to defend our Lord's divinity? Let my readers con- 
sult 1 John ii. 22, 23. Jude 4, and they will find that some in 
the Apostles days denied the divinity of Christ!-— But he will 
not find the inspired penmen making use of the terms " Trini- 
ty" — " three persons in the Godhead, &c." to refute them! — 
He will find them using a very different language ! a language 
much more applicable to some who defend these absurd terms— 
« Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, (a per- 
secutor of his brother,) and have run greedily jor a reward after 
the error of Balaam, (who wanted money for preaching) and pe- 
rished (lost the life of Christianity) in the gain-saying of Core," — ... 
"having not the spirit," (but saying that the literal and lo- 
gical meaning of the Scriptures are our only rule.) See Jude 
i. 11, 19. 

4th. "Paul" tells us that "creeds were invented to tie up 
heretics to truth." A miserable invention truly ! — as useless in 
practice as it was Anti-christian in principle ! — Heretics first 
invented them, and a wide spread heresy was the result ! 

5th. In reply to my quotation from Mosheim, where he says : 
"the doctrine of three persons in one God" had happily escap- 
ed the vain curiosity of human researches during the first three 
centuries." « Paul" acknowledges that " the controversy did 
arise from vain curiosity, not of Christians, however, but of Arius 
and others ; for had not heretics begun to speculate on this sub- 
ject, the orthodox would have invented no terms to prevent 
similar curiosity in future." That the < ( invention of terms" 
should "prevent curiosity,' 9 is a very curious notion. The history 
of the new-fangled terms in the church, the extensive schisms 
45 



354 

they have engendered, the animosities they have excited, the 
wars, and bloodshed, and persecution they have caused, suffi- 
ciently mark their origin — shew them to be the work of Anti- 
christ, and eminently calculated to excite vain curiosity ! and 
if it be true that this curiosity did not originate with Christians, 
then the orthodox bishop of Alexandria was no Christian. « So- 
crates/' the ecclesiastical historian, informs us that " the dis- 
pute arose with this bishop, who discoursing one day too curious- 
ly concerning the doctrine of Trinity in Unity before the clergy, 
Arius opposed him, and hence arose the Arian controversy ! ! ! 
« Theodoret" in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. iv. chap. 1, con- 
firms this sentiment, as does « Constantine" in his letter to 
Alexander and Arius ! 

6th. But « Paul" not only unchristians the bishop of Alex- 
andria, but himself and his tritheistical brethren also !— -as will 
appear from the following sentence: ''real Christians never 
feel justified in indulging any curiosity on the subject. 5 ' — Now 
there is no sect who have indulged more curiosity on the subject 
than Trinitarians ! — as will partly appear from the opinions 
of Waterland, Howe, Owen, Pearson, Bull, Burnet, Wal- 
lis and others, as stated by Amicus,— and further by the 
anxiety which my opponent has manifested, to exhibit the fruit 
of his own vain curiosity in the present discussion ; like a bra- 
vado repeatedly daring us to appear belore the public against 
him ! ! ! — Consequently Trinitarians are not i( real Christians." 
Their precise species I will leave to "Paul" to define ! One 
thing, however, may truly be said of them, they do not " float 
about between the Scylla of Arianism and the Charybdis of 
Socinianism," they have fairly landed on the shores of Tm- 
theism ! A land which, from its first discovery, has produced 
more fruits of persecution and fanatical intolerance, than any 
other that can be pointed to, on the religious atlas ! ! ! 

7th. To the incomprehensible and contradictory nature of my 
opponent's scheme, which I alledged as objections to it, « Paul" 
says : Does « Amicus never talk of things he does not fully com- 
prehend? Does he find no mysteries in medicine? Does he 
know any thing more about fever than a few of its properties, 
causes and effects, &c." — Answer. To know the properties, causes 
and effects, of any thing, is good ground to believe in its ex- 
istence ! When " Paul" can give as good reasons to believe 
that the infinite, omnipresent JEHOVAH is a compound Being, 
consisting of three self-existent, independent, immutable, om- 
nipotent, eternal persons, finite or infinite, which he pleases, 
then I will embrace Tritheism ! — until then he must excuse me 
if I remain a believer in only one God ! ! ! That the doctrine 
of the " Trinity/' as expressed in what is called « the Atha- 



355 

nasian creed," involves contradictory propositions, is certain, 
and Amicus has been taught to believe, that of two contradic- 
tory propositions both cannot be true ! 

8th. «« Paul" tells us, that as he " writes for plain English 
people, he will not enter into a learned criticism on the Hebrew 
word •' Elohim,' which few could understand." After introducing 
the subject himself, and occupying a large portion of two essays 
with borrowed matter to enforce his views, he now begins to 
feel great delicacy for his unlearned readers ! It does not, how- 
ever, require much learning to perceive that he has other rea- 
sons for avoiding the argument ! Delicacy is not a sin that he 
need fear to be charged with. To use his own language, (i This 
is a very convenient way of getting over an argument he cannot 
refute ! ! !" 

" But our translators render the word * Elohim' Gods, two 
hundred times." True, and they render it God many hundred 
times ! and can there be a stronger evidence of the truth of 
my assertion, that the use of this word both as a singular and 
plural noun is an idiom, an irregularity of the language. Ac- 
cording to " Paul's" logic, Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zido- 
nians, and Baalberith the idol of the Shechemites are plural 
beings, a kind of Trinities! — Can any thing be more absurd? 

Many words are used with the plural termination in Hebrew, 
which we are accustomed to express in the singular. Thus in 
Psalm xi. 7, « righteousness is put in the plural." For the Lord 
loveth righteousnesses (Zedakoth,) literally "righteousnes- 
ses." Many examples of this kind could be produced if neces- 
sary, to show that no reliance ought to be placed upon « Paul's" 
whimsical theory grounded on Hebrew anomalies. 

" Paul" thinks the text, Prov. ix. 10, proves that God is a 
" plural Being," and that the term <« holy" refers to God ! He 
gives us no authority for this opinion, but his own ; which from 
his ignorance of the original, manifested in a number of his 
remarks, we cannot rely on. Though king James's bishops some- 
times blundered in their attempts at translation, they under- 
stood the Hebrew too well, to translate this text to suit my oppo- 
nent ! The true meaning of the original would be better ren- 
dered thus : " the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, 
and the knowledge of the saints is understanding." "The 
knowledge that begins with the fear of the Lord, and ends in 
making men holy, truly deserves to be called " understanding." 

But in quoting Hosea xi. 12, (as it is in our translation) why 
did not our wily disputant go back three verses in the same 
chapter? He would have seen the term (Kadosh) " Holy One," 
applied in the singular to the Divine Being, which, to suit his 
own purpose, he, in the 12th verse, translates H holy ones," 



356 

but which the better learned translators have very properly ren- 
dered " saints." The meaning of the original is, « Ephraim 
compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with = 
deceit, but Judah yet has power with God, and is yet reckoned 
among saints." Though **. Paul," in quoting this passage, has 
failed in his object, yet he has plainly proved that his notions 
of the original are all borrowed from Trinitarians, and of course 
are unworthy of any credit, in the present controversy. If he will 
please to get somebody to look for him in the original Hebrew 
Bible, he will find there is but eleven verses in the xith chapter. 
His quotation is in fact the 1st verse of the xiith chapter ! If, 
out of near fifty instances, where (Kadosh) holy, or holy ones, oc- 
curs as a noun in the Old Testament, it is a few times put in the 
plural, what then ? He must have wonderful discernment that 
can find in this circumstance a «« Trinity ! ! !" 

The term *< Holy One," as it occurs in Psalm xvi. 10, is 
generally admitted to apply to Christ — it is so applied by the 
Apostle, Acts ii. 27, and yet this same term has the plural 
form in the original, «* Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, 
nor suffer thy Holy One" (chasideycha,) thy holy or sanctified 
ones, •< to see corruption. " Now, how can « Paul" account 
for this ? Is there a «* trinity" in Christ also ? — If my opponent 
replies in the affirmative, as William Penn says, « the three 
persons will soon increase to nine; if in the negative, his whole 
theory built upon Hebrew anomalies, falls to the ground ! 

In reply to William Penn's arguments, « Paul" calls them 
** metaphysical nonsense" — « unworthy of a distinct answer ! !" 
This is an easy way of getting over unanswerable arguments ! 
Now, in order to prove « Penn's arguments metaphysical non- 
sense," let "Paul" answer these plain questions : not by his 
own nonsense, but candidly and plainly. Are the three persons 
that constitute his " triune God" distinct and separate substan- 
ces or not? If they are not substances, what are they i and are 
they finite or infinite? He tells us, "Penn knows nothing of his 
subject." — « Paul" will now have an opportunity of showing 
what he knows of it ; or whether, like « Dr. Miller," he knows 
nothing about it — not even so much as the meaning of the terms 
he uses ! ! ! 

M Paul" endeavours to alarm his readers by telling them, 
that unless God is divided into three parts, they can have no 
Saviour ! Now the Scriptures tell us plainly, that God the Holy 
One is our Saviour! «« I am Jehovah, beside me there is no Sa- 
viour" Isaiah xlii. 11. The great difference between us, is, 
that " Paul" makes one third part of the Deity « a Saviour f 9 
we ascrib* salvation to an undivided Deity — to " God manifest 
jn the flesh" — to {* God in Christ reconciling the world unto 



357 

himself! 9 ' to "the only wise God our Saviour !" His followers 
have much more cause of alarm, to see their benighted shep- 
herd exerting all his influence to lead them into the dark re- 
gions of Tritheism, " the land of darkness and the shadow of 
death, 99 of lifeless forms, and inefficient ceremonies ! 

AMICUS, 



Saturday, August 17, 1822, 
LETTER XXXIII.* 

ON THE TRINITY. 

«* And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another 
Comforter, that he may abide with ijou forever ; even the Spirit 
of truth." John xiv. 16. 

From the arguments advanced in former numbers, it will be 
evident to every unprejudiced and humble inquirer after truth, 
that there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. 

I will now proceed to show, that this plurality is a Trinity 9 
consisting of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Three persons in One 
God. 1st. John xiv. 26, « But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach 
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, what- 
soever /have said unto you' 9 

This text, which we suppose " Amicus' 9 will allow to be 
genuine, affords a clear and convincing proof of the truth of 
the doctrine for which we contend, and is amply sufficient of 
itself, to withstand the whole battery of Socinian objections. 

The first person mentioned, is the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, 
whom the Father should send in the name of Christ, and whose 
office it should be, to console the disciples of Jesus during his 
absence — to teach them all things — and to bring to their re- 
membrance whatsoever they had heard from the lips of their 
Divine instructer. Now, can it be said of any thing which is 
not a person — He shall teach — He shall bring all things to your 
remembrance — whom the Father will send? He must surely be 
a person who is sent — who teacheih — who is a Comforter, and a 
Remembrancer. 

The second person'm the text is denominated the Father, who 
was to send the Holy Ghost in the name of Christ. 

He who sends another, must be a distinct person from the one 

* This and the two succeeding numbers were written by another hand. 



3S8 

who is sent; but the Father sends the Holy Ghost, they must 
therefore be distinct, and as they cannot be " distinct nothings," 
they must be distinct persons. 

The third person spoken of in this passage, is the Lord Jesus 
Christ, in whose name the Father should send the Holy Ghost. 
He must be a. person in whose name another is sent, and he must 
also be distinct from the other two, (i. e. from the sender, and 
the one sent) No language could possibly more clearly con- 
vey the idea of three distinct agents, than does this text ; and he 
must have a very simple mind indeed, who can perceive but 
one. We must either acknowledge that there are three persons 
spoken of in this text, or we must maintain that no person is 
mentioned, for it is equally plain that there are three, as that 
there is one. 

In discussing this passage, I have dwelt particularly on the 
distinct personality of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, because it 
is only necessary to prove that three persons are mentioned, to 
establish the doctrine of the Trinity ; for you have already ac- 
knowledged the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. 

2d. Another convincing argument may be deduced from the 
baptism of our Saviour, as recorded in the 3d of Matthew, 16 
and 17 verses : (i And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
straightway out of the water, and lo I the heavens were open- 
ed upon him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
dove, and lighting upon him ; and lo I a voice from heaven, 
saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
The interjection, 6i lo !" which here occurs twice, is used to de- 
note something remarkable and worthy of special attention. In 
this text, as in the former one, it is evident that there are three 
distinct agents, to each of whom a distinct act is ascribed. Jesus 
is coming out of the water — the Father speaks from heaven — 
and the Holy Ghost descends in the appearance of a dove, and 
alights on Christ. If this passage does not teach the doctrine 
of three persons in the divine nature, it teaches nothing, and 
is entirely without meaning. « Amicus" censures us for not 
being content with the language of Scripture in expressing our 
ideas of the Divine Being, and intimates that the Holy Ghost 
has been sufficiently accurate in the choice of words by which 
to express the will of God. Let « Amicus" now adhere to his 
own rule, and give us his ideas of this passage. We are afraid 
he will be obliged to remove this text also from the Word of 
God ; or perhaps he will say, « it is a figure of speech" — " a 
Greek anomaly.'* 

I would here beg leave to propose a question similar to one 
which « Amicus" has already asked : If the Holy Spirit had 
not intended to have taught the doctrine of a trinity of persons 



359 

in the Deity, would he have used language so obviously calcu- 
lated to inculcate this doctrine ? To say that the Holy Spirit 
" did not much concern himself with the niceties of modern 
grammarians," would dishonour the God of truth ; and yet, 
such in effect is the language of " Amicus;" for did not Moses, 
as well as other holy men, speak as he was moved by the Holy 
Ghost ? In this second text, (Matt. iii. 16, 17,) the doctrine of 
three persons in the Deity, is more clearly asserted than in John 
xiv. 26 ; for, in addition, there are the appearance of a dove, 
(representing the Holy Spirit,) and the voice from heaven (pro- 
ceeding from the Father,) « this is my beloved Son." 

«« Amicus" may, if he pleases, again ascribe to us " gross 
and carnal conceptions," in perceiving the doctrine of the 
Trinity in this passage; but he must excuse us, if we are ob- 
stinate enough to prefer the plain sense of Scripture to all his 
refined notions, and if we should venture to assert that our op- 
ponent, after having acknowledged the divinity of the Son and 
Spirit, will never be able to persuade the people of God to re- 
ject the doctrine under consideration, to embrace his unscriptu- 
ral sentiment. 

3d. The form used in Christian baptism, as laid down by our 
Lord himself, constitutes our third argument, Matt, xxviii. 19, 
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
This language is very emphatic, and expresses the idea of three 
persons as distinctly as words can express it. If the Father is 
a person, (which "Amicus" will not deny,) then the SonsAso is 
a person, and consequently, the Holy Ghost; and on the con- 
trary, if the Son and Spirit are not persons, then the Father is 
not a person; for it is necessary that the same things should be 
understood of each ; namely, their divinity, and the Christian's 
reliance on them as the God of our salvation. 

If " Amicus" should be permitted to refine this passage, we 
conceive it would read thus : " Go ye not, therefore, and teach 
not all nations, baptizing them not in the name of God, and 
of * mortal flesh,' and of a divine influence." 

We rejoice in the belief, that the Christian church is not pre- 
pared to adopt a creed which does such violence and dishonour 
to the Scriptures of truth. 

4th. We appeal to the Apostolic benediction, in proof of the 
doctrine of the Trinity. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, «« The grace of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." The observations 
which I have already made on the three preceding texts, are 
equally applicable to this. Each of the sacred persons is dis- 
tinctly mentioned, and an appropriate blessing prayed for from 



360 

each — grace from the Son — love from God the Father — communion 
from the Holy Ghost, 

The only difference between this and former texts, is, that 
the word God is used, instead of the Father, which circumstance 
tends to strengthen our argument. 

5 tb. There are few texts more directly opposed to the opinion 
of *' Amicus" than is John xvii. 5 ; and indeed the whoie of 
this chapter : " And now, Father ! glorify thou me with thine 
own self with the glory which J had with thee before the world 
was." 

Here is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who declares 
that he possessed glory with the Father, before the world was. 
Now, the human nature of Christ, the « mortal flesh" had no 
existence till four thousand years after the world was created — 
it could not then be " mortal flesh" which possessed glory with 
the Father. It was then the divine nature of Christ, which 
was with the Father, and possessed glory with him before the 
world was. But surely he is a distinct person from the Father, 
who prays to the Father for that glory which he had with him, 
before the world was, (i. e. from everlasting.) If the divine 
nature of our Lord Jesus, is not a distinct person from the Fa- 
ther, then the text just quoted is absurd and unintelligible ; but, 
* by keeping this distinction always in view, (not only this pas- 
sage, hut) the most difficult Scripture passages, relating to 
Christ, are easily solved." 

6th. The last direct passage which I shall at present adduce in 
support of the doctrine of the Trinity, is, 1 John v. 7, « For 
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." This 
text « Amicus" has pronounced «« spurious ;" but Christians 
will not be disposed to expel it from the Bible on his bare asser- 
tion. This passage is so unequivocal a proof of the doctrine of 
the Trinity, that it is no wonder that it has been assailed by the 
enemies of truth — and that they have exerted all their inge- 
nuity to prove it an interpolation. 

"Amicus" by calling it "spurious" without attempting to 
prove it so, is merely begging the question ; — we shall there- 
fore put him to the trouble of bringing forth his arguments 
against its authenticity, before we think it incumbent on us to 
step forward in its defence. 

If we are not content with Scripture terms, " Amicus" is 
not content with Scripture itsexf ; but by reiterating the So- 
einian cry of "spurious !" he endeavours to expunge a part of 
God's Word from the Bible. Socinians and others of the same 
stamp, will not acknowledge this passage as genuine, for should 
they do so, their cause would be lost. 



361 

We advise « Amicus" to be very careful how he pronounces 
a part of God's Word ** spurious," lest he should commit that 
sin, which would « take away his part out of the book of life.*-" 
(Rev. xxii. 19.) 

The foregoing arguments will derive additional weight in 
every pious mind, from other doctrines peculiar to the Gospel — 
such as — the atonement of our Saviour — his intercession with 
the Father — and his being appointed by the Father the judge 
of the world — together with the office of the Holy Spirit as 
the regenerater, comforter and sanctifier of Gods people. From 
what has now been advanced in favour of the doctrine of a 
Trinity of persons in the Godhead, we think it will be as clear 
as day to every candid mind, that this foundation of the Gos- 
pel, which Penn calls " sandy," is firmly built on the rock of 
truth, and that it is in no danger of being « shaken" or subverted 
by the feeble assaults of its foes. It has triumphantly withstood 
the repeated attacks of the enemy of souls for the space of 
eighteen hundred years — its believers and advocates are constantly 
increasing — and it will remain the doctrine of the Bible and of 
the church of Christ, when the tongues and pens of its adver- 
saries are heard and move no more. 

Before closing our present number, we shall notice a few 
prominent things in the last communication of m Amicus." 

1. His abuse of Trinitarians. He calls us " Tritheists," i. e. 
worshippers of three Gods. — He accuses us of H malice" — of 
" falsehood" — of « self-interest" — of «« mercenary" motives in 
defending the truth — of « popery'' — and of wilfully " aiming 
from the beginning of the present controversy, to vilify and de- 
fame the Society of Friends." These terms of reproach and 
unjust charges, come with a very ill grace from the meek, the 
charitable and loving Friend, who is continually complaining of 
our want of christian love. In calling us " Tritheists," « Ami- 
cus 5 ' is inconsistent with himself. — In one of his essays, (page 
327,) he calls " Wickliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Melanc- 
thon, and others, faithful sons of the morning," and yet those 
who maintain the same doctrines with those reformers, are 
sons of darkness, — "dark" — « letter learned clergy." Why 
did not "Amicus" call Luther and Calvin, "Tritheists." 
Again, " Amicus" calls John Newton a true minister of Christ, 
(page 311,) but if Newton were alive now, he would only be 
« a mercenary priest." We advise our opponent, hereafter to 
imitate the example of our Reedemer, " who when he was 
reviled, reviled not again." 

2. We notice the misrepresentations of" Amicus." His whole 
drift in his present essays, is to ridicule the doctrine of the Tri- 
nity, by endeavouring to persuade his readers that we believe 

46 



362 

in the existence of three Gods. To this purpose he falsely re- 
presents us as believing that, « God is divided in three parts,"— 
that " there are three persons and yet but one person' 9 in the Dei- 
ty* (P a S e 343.) Now we deny that we ever believed, or profes- 
sed to believe, such absurdities ; and we hope that <* Amicus," 
on consideration, will be ashamed that he has thus misrepre- 
sented our faith. Here we will humbly answer the questions, 
which « Amicus," towards the close of his last communication, 
has proposed. We believe that there are three persons, (not 
three substances) in the divine nature or Godhead. But it will 
be asked, " What are those persons?" We answer : This is the 
point on which "real Christians never feel justified in indulg- 
ing any curiosity." It is enough for us that the Scriptures plain- 
ly teach the « Trinity of persons in the Godhead ;" — we do 
not therefore attempt to decide, « what those persons are;'* — or 
how they are consistent with the unity of Jehovah ; both of 
which, however, we firmly believe. 

3. The equivocation of « Amicus. He frequently makes men- 
tion of the " divinity of Christ" — of his being the M Saviour," 
the «* Mediator," the " Redemer," the " Intercessor" — of his 
" atonement," &c. — but he takes care to say little or nothing 
with respect to the meaning which he attaches to these terms. 
We request " Amicus" to tell us explicitly, what he means, and 
what his society means by the terms just mentioned. 

4. We notice i( Amicus '" want of information. He still per- 
sists in denying that there is any commonly received doctrine 
of the Trinity. And he has given us quotations from eight or 
nine individuals, to prove that all the Christian world disagree 
on this doctrine !! ! Admirable logic!!! Will any man in his 
senses believe that nine individuals compose the vast multitude 
of Trinitarians ? If « Amicus" can believe this, one would 
think he might also believe the doctrine of the Trinity, if it 
were even as absurd as he wishes to make it appear. If my op- 
ponent has a desire to know what is the commonly received doc- 
trine,, let him consult the ?« Confessions of Faith" of the Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Congrega- 
tional ists, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, and others, and he will 
find that they all express the doctrine of the Trinity in nearly 
the same words. Here then we have almost the whole Christian 
Church, who agree in their ideas of the Trinity, and use the 
same forms of expression ; and yet " Amicus" thinks (or ap- 
pears to think,) that there is no commonly received doctrine of 
the Trinity. Let « Amicus" have the fairness to appeal to our 
Confessions of Faith, and not attempt to mislead his readers by 
quoting individuals. 

5. «« Amicus" says : « That the Jews ever held the doctrine 



363 

of the Trinity, is a slander against them, and all the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament." Now men as learned as our opponent, 
and men the most learned in the Christian world, have given 
quotations from the most ancient Jewish writings, which prove 
that the Jewish rabbles and doctors, before the coming of 
Christ, believed the doctrine of the Trinity. (See Maurice's In- 
di in Antiquities — Dr. Aliix's Testimonies of the Jewish church, 
and others). That the modern Jews do not believe this doctrine 
we grant; but let « Amicus" prove that this was not the faith 
ef the ancient Jews. PAUL. 

Seventh-duy, 8th mo. 24, 1822. 

LETTER XXXIV. 

« In that day there shall be One Lord, and his name One. 9 ' Zech. 
xiv, 9. « I am God and not man, the Holy ONE in the midst 
of thee." Hos. xi. 9. I am Jehovah; beside me there is no Sa- 
viour. Isa. xlii. 11. 

Amicus has now a new opponent but not a new writer to 
deal with. His first appearance in the " Repository, 5 ' indicates 
more talent than his predecessor had any claim to. I hope he 
may manifest more candor. It is painful to Amicus to expose 
the disingenuousness of his opponent — to give, as I did in my 
last number, the evidence of wilful misrepresentation. With 
our writings in his hands, his gross misstatement of our doc- 
trines cannot be imputed to ignorance. 

<« Paul" charges me with using « terms of reproach," and 
making « unjust charges." If I have used such terms, the blame 
should attach to those who have fairly earnrd them. The 
"justness' 9 of every charge preferred against my opponent and 
his doctrines, has, I think, been shewn. My assertions have 
been supported by authentic documents, or proved by fair in- 
duction. If « Paul" think otherwise, and will point out a 
single error under these heads, I will promise to give him 
further satisfaction. I will either prove my premises, or ac- 
knowledge my mistake. 

It is, however, cause of satisfaction to perceive that my pre- 
sent opponent thinks it blamable to use «' terms of reproach,** 
and to make " unjust charges." In admitting tin's sentiment he 
passes a very severe censure on his forerunner ; and I would 
gently remind him, that his own essay is not immaculate in these 
respects. I will, however, do him the justice to acknowledge 
that while his address has more argument, it has less abuse* 
than those of his predecessor. 



364 

1 shall hereafter revert to his proofs, that God is a compound 
Being — in other words, composed of « three distinct and se- 
parate persons," when, I think, we shall see, that the « hum- 
ble inquirer after truth" must be extremely " prejudiced," 
before he can embrace a doctrine which contradicts our reason, 
makes language useless, opposes the views of the inspired pen- 
men, and leaves us in a labyrinth of mystery and darkness from 
which the Trinitarians can furnish us with no means of escape. 

In every well conducted argument, the parties first ascer- 
tain the precise ideas to be attached to the terms they use. If 
truth is their object, this is an indispensable preliminary. In 
my last essay, in order to arrive at this point, I requested 
« Paul" to answer some questions respecting the nature of the 
persons which compose his «* triune God," but as he has evaded 
slJuII answer, I shall have to seek it from his former positions. 

My first query was : " Are the three persons that constitute 
his triune God, distinct and separate substances or not?" To 
this question he replies : " We believe that there are three per- 
sons, not three substances in the Godhead?" — "Not three sub- 
stances [" — then the " three persons" in their distinct and sepa- 
rate capacity, must be unsubstantial, not real, mere ideal forms — 
subsisting only in the imagination !!! — What blasphemy does 
this conclusion involve ! Now how can three unsubstantial persons, 
when put together, or rather when kept distinct and separate, 
be ONE SUBSTANTIAL BEING, the Creator of innumer- 
able worlds — the Maker and Preserver of all things? The idea 
is preposterous ! — the doctrine is absurd ! ! ! — To have a Sa- 
viour at all, he must be a real substantial Saviour. — If he be 
unreal or unsubstantial he can be no Saviour! 

My second and third queries were : « If the three persons 
are not substances, what are they?" and "Are they finite or 
infinite I These questions he evades in the usual way with Tri- 
nitarians, by telling us, that « this is the point on which real 
Christians never feel justified in indulging any curiosity !" — 
" We do not attempt to decide what those persons are !" This 
is a mere shift to get over a difficulty — to evade a conclusion 
which would blast their scheme, and accelerate the downfall 
of a doctrine, invented by men who had lost " the power of god- 
liness," and apostatized from Christ the true and living Head 
of his spiritual body, the church ! 

But I would ask "Paul," — How is it that "real Chris- 
tians" begin to feel a check to their curiosity at this precise 
point? — Is it consistent with the character of a " real Chris- 
tian to indulge his curiosity" so far as to examine into the na- 
ture of these " three persons," and induce him to decide that 
they are unsubstantial; and yet inconsistent with that charac- 



S6B 

ter, to determine whether they are finite or infinite ? — Is it less 
criminal to determine on the nature, than on the measure of their 
being? — Every " unprejudiced" and rational *« inquirer after 
truth," must perceive that the objection to answer my query 
docs not arise from any scruple of conscience, but from a con- 
viction that to answer it, either way, will involve them in dif- 
ficulty, from which they cannot be extricated. *< Paul" admits 
that the Deity is infinite. If therefore, he had said, the three 
persons which compose the Deity are finite, it would inevitably 
follow, that three finite persons may make an infinite God! — If 
he had said, they are infinite, then every one would see that he 
is a TRITHEIST— a believer in « three Gods ! ! !" In the first 
case he would be involved in a palpable absurdity — in the other 
in idolatry ! ! ! — Well therefore, may my opponent endeavour 
under the cover of a tender conscience to escape a dilemma so 
fatal to his cause ! ! ! 

But though "Paul" is now very tender on this one point, 
though " he will not [now] attempt to decide what those persons 
are," yet it is strikingly apparent, that this tenderness is of a re- 
cent origin ! In his xxxth Letter, p. 32*, he tells us, ** the per- 
son who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, (Gen. xviii. 
1,) to whom Abraham prayed, and whom he addressed as the 
Judge of all the earth, who is called JEHOVAH fourteen times 
in that single chapter, is spoken of in chap. xix. verse 24, as a 
distinct person from JEHOVAH in heaven ! As he stood upon 
the earth and called down fire from heaven upon Sodom and 
Gomorrah it is said — Then JEHOVAH rained upon Sodom and 
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from JEHOVAH out of heaven." 
From this text (which from his ignorance of the Hebrew, he 
has rendered falsely) he draws this conclusion: (i Either 
there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, or a plurality of 
Gods;" — "the latter supposition," he says, <* is an absurdity 
and impossibility — the former is a possibility but a great myste- 
ry ! /.'" — He might have said with as much truth, ** a great in- 
consistency ! ! !" 

In these sentences « Paul" has told us, as plainly as lan- 
guage can tell us, that the persons composing his i( triune God," 
are all finite persons! Infinity implies immensity, boundless- 
ness, without limit. But one of « Paul's" imaginary persons 
can stand upon this little globe — this molehill, and call down 
fire from the other in heaven — somewhere up in the clouds I 
suppose ; whether from within the atmospheric rigion or not, 
he does not inform us ! ! ! 

From what has been stated, we have fairly arrived at two 
conclusions ; — as I think cannot be denied. The first is, that 
the three persons are unsubstantial, unreal, — they are *« not three 



36C> 

substances'* — the second is that they are finite; One can stand 
on this earth and call down fire from the other up in heaven ! ! ! 
Can there be greater absurdities ? I know but of one that can 
possibly be deemed so — and that is — that these three unsubstan- 
tial, unreal, finite, limited persons, though they be " distinct and 
separate/' yet they make up One self-existent, indepen- 
dent, IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL, OMNIPRESENT, INDIVISIBLE, 

all-powerful God ! Admirable logic ! ! ! 

But lest some of our readers, from a superstitious veneration 
for our present translation of the Holy Scriptures, or from a mis- 
placed confidence in the statement of my former opponent, 
should suppose, that the text, (Gen. xix. 24,) was intended by 
Moses to convey the absurd idea of « a plurality of persons in 
the Godhead," 1 will briefly observe, that the original conveys 
no such idea ! The verse in which the word Jehovah occurs 
twice as aforesaid, contains what is called by grammarians 
** An apposition:" — hence, in the Hebrew Scriptures, under the 
word (Vaaish) we find an ethnach, a musical point having the 
same force as a colon — the true reading, therefore, is this: <* And 
JEHOVAH caused it to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah brim- 
stone and fire from the heaven of JEHOVAH." Neither the 
anomalies of the Hebrew language, nor the judgment of my 
former opponent, are to be relied on in the present discussion. 
I say the anomalies of the Hebrew, for the Greek writers ne- 
ver use a plural noun as a name of the Deity. 

The term <* person," is never applied to the Deity in the 
original Scriptures : It is but once so used in the present trans- 
lation of them, (Heb. i. 3,) and there it is falsely rendered. It 
seems to imply, form, dimensions, limitation, which are incom- 
patible with just views of the Divine nature. It is, I think, a 
term too gross and carnal to apply to that ineffable Being, whose 
presence fills the boundless regions of space: « in whom we 
live, and move, and have our being." Acts xvii. 28. But if we 
allow the term "person" to be applied to the Deity, and take 
the most approved definition of it given by « Boethius," (who 
defended what is called the Orthodox Creed,) to wit : « an in- 
dividual substance of a rational and intelligent nature; 99 and if we 
also allow that there are "three persons in the Godhead," we 
fall directly into TRITHE1SM, for then there must be three 
individual divine substances, each having a rational intelligent 
nature — of course THREE GODS ! ! ! But my opponent says, 
they are " not three substances, 99 — he therefore rejects the defi- 
nition of "Boethius," and consequently they must be three un- 
substantial, unreal, imaginary phantoms 1 1 1 The more my 
opponent's scheme is examined, the more it appears like 
ATHEISM disguised ! Nevertheless, I am far from supposing 



367 

that Trinitarians generally mean to worship either three un- 
substantial imaginary persons, or three distinct and separate 
Gods ; for 1 believe that many of them do not see the necessary 
consequences of the Trinitarian scheme ! 

Before I discuss the Scripture passages adduced by " Paui," 
as proofs of his scheme, 1 will, in a brief manner, state our 
doctrine of the DEITY* as we believe it is revealed in the Bi- 
ble, and confirmed by the evidences of truth in various ways 
to our understanding. 

We believe " there is but one God"— one divine, eternal, 
indivisible Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient ; 
the Creator of heaven and earth, things visible and invisible. 
We believe that this divine Being, in boundless mercy to man- 
kind, and adapting himself to the circumstances and capacities 
of his children, hath, " at sundry times and in divers manners," 
revealed himself to them. To the primogenitors of the human 
race by his immediate presence. To the patriarchs, prophets 
and others, sometimes immediately, sometimes under the ap- 
pearance of angels, and sometimes in the form of men. After 
about four thousand years from the creation, w r e believe this 
same divine Being was snper-eminently manifested in the per- 
son of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Virgin Mary, by mi- 
raculous conception — « a man, approved of God by miracles, 
and wonders, and signs, which God did by him." Acts ii. 22. 
And lastly, we believe that this same God, under the new co- 
venant dispensation, is manifesting himself in and to the souls 
of his rational family, wherever scattered, for the purpose of 
U convincing them of sin," converting them to himself, and 
preparing them for " an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, 
and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" for those of 
M every kindred, and tongue and people," who are willing to 
accept the offers of his divine love. See the following texts, 
Heb. viii. 10, 11, 12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 7 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Peter iii. 
9 ; Rev. v. 9, &c. &c. &e. 

And though we believe in but one divine Being, yet we be- 
lieve in the divinity of Christ. " God," saith the Apostle, « was 
in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. v. 19. 
This text, with many others that might be adduced, give us a 
clear and consistent idea of our Lord's divinity ; for as it is not 
possible that there can be more than one Divinity, so we are 
taught by the holy penmen to believe, that God in Christ is the 
true and proper divinity of Christ J for "in Him dwelt all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily" — or, as it should be rendered, 
"substantially." Col. ii. 9. "For HE, whom God hath sent, 
speaketh the words of God 9 for God giveth not the Spirit by 
measure unto him." John iii. 3*. Accordingly, in him all the 



368 

attributes of the Deity were manifested ! The omnipotent crea- 
tive power of God, in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes ; 
in restoring the blind, the lame, and the withered : in healing 
the sick, and raising the dead ! His power to destroy, in blasting 
the fruitless fig-tree ! HIS omniscience in penetrating the hid- 
den recesses of the human heart, knowing the secret thoughts 
of those about him, and foreseeing the events of futurity ! And 
the love and mercy of God were eminently manifested in Christ, 
by a glorious display of actions the most beneficent, a benevo- 
lence unparalleled — in his dying moments praying for his perse- 
cutors, and asking forgiveness for those who put him to the 
most excruciating death ! ! ! 

Abstractedly from this divinity, we believe, according to the 
plainest Scripture testimony, that « Jesus of Nazareth was a 
man ;" that he was of " the seed of Abraham," Heb. ii. 16 ; 
" the seed of David :V Acts xiii. 23. Rom. i. 3. " in all points 
tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. iv. 15. « In all 
things made like his brethren." Heb. ii. 17. *' He increased in 
wisdom, and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke 
ii. 52. And " though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience 
by the things which he suffered." Heb. v. 8. All which, and 
abundant other Scripture testimony which might be adduced, 
go clearly to prove this point But I think I need go no fur- 
ther, as even the Athanasian Creed grants it. " A perfect man 
of a reasonable soul and human flesh." See the Creed. 

How then does the difficulty arise between us ? Why, our 
opponents are not satisfied with this Scripture account ! they 
have invented the term 6i Trinity" — they have contrived a 
scheme of « three persons in the Godhead," between whom they 
divide the divinity ! — or rather, they give the whole of it to each 
of them! — either of which, in the nature of things, is impos- 
sible ! and consequently their doctrine is absurd ! 

Now, if my opponent wishes to convert us to the faith of the 
orthodox Roman Catholic church, of the fourth and subsequent 
centuries, let him no longer hide himself in mystery, but by a 
luminous explanation of his faith, convince us that it is not 
« justly chargeable" with error and absurdity. " Nothing," 
says Bishop Watson, < ( has contributed more to the propagation 
of DEISM, than the making doctrines, abhorrent from reason. 
parts of the Christian system. There may be doctrines above 
reason, but nothing which is evidently contrary to reason, can 
ever be justly considered a part of the Christian dispensa- 
tion." 

I will now proceed to notice " Paul's" arguments grounded 
on Scripture texts, when we shall see whether the inspired 
penmen were Trinitarians or not. That the divine nature is 



369 

one and indivisible, is expressly taught by our Saviour himself, 
from whom there ean be no appeal ! Father* Son and Holy Spi- 
rit — or whatever other terms, such as ** the Comforter." — the 
«« Unction from the Holy One," — «« The Grace of God" &e. used 
by the Evangelists and Apostles, all refer us to the one divine 
Life, Light, Power, and Spirit, which is GOD. In proof of 
which, I will adduce the following passages: 

1st. Jesus saith, " Have J been so long time with you, and 
yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath 
seen the Father." John xiv. 9. The pronoun me here alludes 
to the «« divinity of Christ, 9 " as I have before explained it ; and 
as our Lord explained it to Philip, verse 10 : «» The words that 
I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; [as the son of Mary,] 
the Father that dwelleth in me, He doth the works." Now here 
is no distinction of divine persons in the Godhead ; and yet there 
is a clear distinction between Jesus as a man, and God in Christ ! 
and, as if to show that Father, Son and Holy Spirit meant the 
same thing when applied to the divinity, our Saviour here ex- 
pressly informs us, that HE is himself the Father. 2d. This 
truth will be amply corroborated by a due consideration of the 
following passages — one of which, to suit his own purpose, 
** Paul" has partially quoted : <* And I will pray the Father, 
and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with 
you forever, even the Spirit of Truth." John xiv. 16, 17. «* i" 
will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you." verse 18. 
"The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
send in my name, He shall teach you all things." ver. 26. 
'< When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from 
the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from 
the Father, he shall testify of me." xv. 26. «* It is expedient 
for you that I go away, [as to my personal presence,] for if I go 
not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, 
I will send him unto you." xvi. 7. 

In these passages it is observable, 1st. That this Comforter 
is the Holy Spirit: « even the Spirit of truth." ad. That this 
Comforter is Christ :" <• I will not leave you comfortless, I will 
eoine unto you." 3d. That it is the Father who sends this Com- 
forter : "The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the 
Father will send" &e. -ith. That it is Christ who sends this 
Comforter: *< If /depart I will send him unto you" — the Com- 
forter whom I will send unto you," &e. 5th. That the terms 
ft Christ" and the « Father' 9 are convertible terms ; when ap- 
plied to the Divinity, they mean the same thing: *« He that 
hath seen me hath seen the Father." 

The premises being seriously considered, I think the follow- 
ing conclusions will be deemed irrefutable : 1st. That tire 
47 



370 

terms *« Father," and " Christ," and « the Comforter," and 
the « Holy Spirit," are, when applied to the Divinity, perfectly 
synonymous. 2d. And consequently, that God the Father is 
Christ the Saviour — that Christ the Saviour is the Comforter — 
that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit — that the Holy Spirit is 
God the Father; for « God is a Spirit." John iv. 24 ; and as 
the Apostle expresses it, he is "the only wise God our Saviour," 
to whom *« be glory aud majesty, dominion and power, both now 
and ever. Amen." Jude 25. AMICUS. 

N.B. For want of room I must postpone a reply to the other 
arguments of my opponent to a future essay. 



Saturday, August 31, 1822. 

LETTER XXXIV. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

" And I will pray the Father ; and he shall give you another Com- 
forter, that he may abide with you forever ; even the Spirit of truth, 
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither 
knoweth him ; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall 
be in you. 9 * John xiv. 16, 17. 

" I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: 
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said 
unto him, lo J now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb ." 
John xvi. 28, 29. 

The subject which at present engages our attention, is very 
important, and ought to be well understood. It enters into the 
very essence of the Christian religion. If our views are erro- 
neous with respect to the God of our salvation, they must also 
be equally so on every subject connected therewith. Jesus 
Christ is "the chief corner stone" on which the spiritual 
temple of the Lord is erected. If our hope of eternal life is 
not built on this sure foundation, it will be found at last that we 
have built on a " sandy foundation," which will not only be 
« shaken," but entirely destroyed at that awful day, when «« the 
wrath of God shall be revealed from heaven against all ungod- 
liness and unrighteousness of men." It is then absolutely ne- 
cessary to salvation that we have correct faith with respect to 
the divinity, person and offices of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ. 

As the doctrine of the Trinity is of so much consequence in 
the Christian system, it will be gratifying to the public to see 
it further illustrated and confirmed : We beg leave, therefore, 



371 

to occupy a part of the present number with extracts from two 
or three of the most approved Trinitarian writers. 

1st. Watts. — Of this writer •< Amicus" sa)s, (page 351,) 
9* Watts, with respect to the divine nature, and its manifesta- 
tion in the flesh, came nearer to the doctrine of Scripture than 
any of them." 

Let us hear what Watts has to say on this subject. His es- 
say on w the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity" is divided into 
a number of propositions, each of which lie illustrates at large. 
We have only room to give a part of those propositions, as they 
stand at the head of each chapter, but from them our readers 
will obtain a just idea of the doctrine of Watts. 

Proposition 4. — »« Since there can be but one God, the pe- 
culiar, divine, and distinguishing characters of Godhead, can- 
not belong to any other Being." 

Prop. 7. — « The peculiar and distinguishing characters of 
Godhead are these: — Names — Titles — Mtributes — Works, and 
Worship — which God has assumed to himself in his Word, ex- 
clusive of any other being; and has either asserted their ex- 
pressly belonging only to himself, or left it sufficiently evident 
in his Word, that they belong to him alone." 

Prop. 8 — « Yet these very names, titles. &c. which are pe- 
culiar to God, and incommunicable to any other, are ascribed to 
three, by God himself in his Word ; which three are distinguish- 
ed by the names of Father, Son, and Spirit." 

Prop. 10. — "Thence it follows, necessarily, that these three 
have such an intimate and real communion in that one Godhead, 
as is sufficient to justify the ascription of those distinguishing 
divine characters to them." 

Prop. 12 « Though the Father, Son and Spirit are but one 

true God, yet there are such distinguishing properties, actions, 
characters and circumstances ascribed to them, as are usually as- 
cribed to three distinct persons among men." 

Prop. 13. — " Therefore it has been the custom of the Chris- 
tian church, in almost all ages, to use thp word person in order 
to describe these three distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit, 
and to call them three distinct persons." 

Prop. 14 "Though the Sacred Three are evidently and 

plainly discovered in Scripture to be one and the same God, and 
three distinct personal agents or persons ; yet the Scripture hath 
not, in plain and evident language, explained or precisely de- 
termined the particular way and manner, how these three per- 
sons are one God, or how this one Godhead is in tliree persons" 

Pr >p 15. — « Hence I infer, that it can never be necessary 
to salvation, to know the precise manner how one God subsist? 



372 

in these three personal agents. Father, Son and Spirit, or how 
thehe three are one God." 

Prop. 16. — 4< Yet we ought to believe the general doctrine of 
the Trinity — namely, that these three personal agents have some 
real communion in one Godhead, though we cannot find out the 
precise way of explaining it." 

Prop. 20 — " We are bound therefore to pay divine honours 
to each of the sacred three 9 according to their distinct charac- 
ters and offices assigned to them in Scripture." 

Prop. 21. — " In so doing we shall effectually secure our own 
salvation ; for the Scripture hath made our salvation to depend 
on these offices which these divine persons sustain, and the ho- 
nours due to them according to those offices ; rather than upon 
any deep philosophical notions of their essences and personalities — 
any nice and exact acquaintance with their mysterious union 
and distinction." 

The whole of the doctrine contained in the above extract, is 
admirably expressed in one stanza of the 29th hymn, third 
book of Watts' sacred poetry : 

Glory to God the Trinity, 

*« Whose name has mysteries unknown ; 
" In essence one, in perso7is Three ; 

(t A social nature, yet alone/' 

From these extracts, in Watts' own words, it is evident that 
he held precisely the same sentiments with Trinitarians in 
general ; and it will also be seen how grossly Watts' doctrine 
has been misrepresented by <* Amicus," in p. 352. Our op- 
ponent there sa>s, ** Be (i. e. Watts) maintained that there 
is one supreme God dwelling in the human nature of Christ — 
that the divine Logos was the wisdom of God, and the Holy 
Spirit the divine power." 

It is plain from the quotation just given from Watts, that he 
6i maintained" no such doctrine. His opinion was — i hat the second 
person in the Trinity, whom he calls the divine Logos* dwelt 
in the human nature of Christ, and that the divine Logos and 
Holy Spirit, were really and truly distinct persons in the Deity, 
from the Father. 

"Amicus" has also misrepresented his opinion with respect 
to the human nature of Christ, by affirming that «« he differed 
from the Athanasians very widely on the subject of the human 
nature, or Jlesh born of the virgin Mary ; this he supposed to 
have existed the first of all creatures." This is entirely erro- 
neous. Watts did not differ in the loast from other Trinitarians 
with respect to the ."flesh, born of the Virgin Mary." He be- 
lieved that the human body of Christ was formed in the same 
manner that our bodies are. The only difference between Watts 



373 

and us, on this subject, is this : he believed that the human 
Soul of Christ (not the flesh; « existed the first of all ere atui cs." 

«* Amicus" appears to wish to enlist Watts on his side of 
the controversy ; but we are confident he has missed his aim. 
if such aim he had. 

After being detected in such misrepresentations, we wonder 
if " Amicus" will think himself entitled to the character of a 
" candid disputant." Is it candour to misrepresent our writers, 
and then raise the cry, see how they differ!! 

We do not accuse « Amicus" of wilful misrepresentation . 
we believe «< he did it through ignorance," and that he has at- 
tempted to quote Watts, without having any personal acquaint- 
ance with that great writer. We recommend to "Amicus" to 
procure Watts' « Scripture doctrine ot the Trinity," and give 
it a diligent perusal, and perhaps some of his prejudices against 
the doctrine may be removed. 

2. Gill proves the personality of the Son and Holy Spirit, by 
the following arguments : 
First,— Of the Son. 

1. «* His being with God as the Word, John i. 1; he cannot 
with any propriety be said to be with himself." 

2. « His being set up from everlasting as Mediator — a mere 
name and character could not be said to be set up, to be co- 
venanted with. See Prov. viii. 23. Psalm Ixxxix. 3, 28." 

&. " His being sent in the fulness of time to be the Saviour 
of his people, shews him to be distinct from the Father, whose 
Son he is, and by whom he was sent." 

4. " His becoming a sacrifice and making satisfaction for 
the sins of men, and so the Redeemer and Saviour of them 
plainly declare his distinct personality. Reconciliation and 
atonement for sin, are personal acts." 

5. « His ascension to heaven, and session at the right hand 
of God, shew him to be a person that ascended, and is sat down. 
« The Lord said unto my Lord, sit on my right hand.' He can- 
not be the same person with him at whose right hand he sits." 
John xx. 17. Heb. i. 13. 

6. " His advocacy and intercession with his Father, are a 
plain proof of his distinct personality. He is said to be an * ad- 
vocate with the Father.' 1 John ii. 1; and therefore he must be 
a person, to act the part of an advocate; he himself says: «I 
will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter/ 
meaning the Spirit of truth, as next explained, John xiv. 16, 
17. Now he must be distinct from the Father to whom he prays, 
for surely he cannot be supposed to pray to himself; and he 
must be distinct from the Spirit/or whom he prays." 

* The distinct personality of the Spirit is proved from : — 



37* 

1. His procession from the Father and the Son. 2. The mission 
of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. 3. The Holy 
Spirit is called another Comforter. 4. The Holy Spirit is repre- 
sented as doing some things distinct from the Father and the 
Son. 2 Thess. iii. 5. John xvi. 14, 15. 5. There are some dis- 
tinct appearances of the Spirit, which shew his distinct per- 
sonality, as at the baptism of Christ, and the day of pentecost. 
6. The Holy Spirit is represented as a distinct person in the 
ordinance of baptism. Matt, xxviii. 19." 

3. Parkhurst 5 whom 6t Amicus" recommends as a "good 
writer on the Hebrew language," is very explicit in proving 
the doctrine of the Trinity from the Hebrew Scriptures. See 
his remarks under the words Elohim and Kerub. 

4. The last author from whom we shall quote, is Dr. Scott, 
the author of a Commentary on the Bible, who is universally 
esteemed as a pious, judicious and learned divine. Scott was 
himself at one time an Unitarian, an opposer of the doctrine of 
the Trinity ; but when he was brought to a knowledge of the 
"truth as it is in Jesus," he gave the following testimony of 
his faith : If distinct personality, agency and divine perfections, 
be in Scripture ascribed to the Father, and to the Son, and to 
the Holy Ghost, no words can more exactly express the doc- 
trine, which must unavoidably be thence inferred, th#n those 
commonly used on this subject : viz : that there are three dis- 
tinct persons in the unity of the Godhead. The sacred oracles 
most assuredly teach us, that the one, living and true God is, 
in some inexplicable manner, Triune, for he is spoken of, as 
One in some respects, and Three in others. The Trinity of per- 
sons in the Deity consists with the unity of the divine essence, 
though we pretend not to explain the modus (or mariner of it) 
and deem those reprehensible who have attempted it. The doc- 
trine of the Trinity is indeed a mystery, but no man hath yet 
shewn that it involves in it a real contradiction. Yet till this be 
shewn, it is neither fair nor convincing to exclaim against it 
as contradictory, absurd, and irrational." From these extracts 
the reader may form a correct idea of the " commonly received 
doctrine of the Trinity." 

Enough has now been said to convince a humble and candid 
mind, that the doctrine we advocate is in perfect accordance 
with the inspired Word of God: and we believe that all the 
ridicule and misrepresentation of its opposers, will fail to make 
it appear absurd. Let all those who are anxious inquirers, and 
are willing to know the truth, compare the arguments which 
we have advanced, with the Scriptures, — let them pray con- 
tinually for the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, — and 
then let each one be persuaded in his own mind $ remembering 



375 

at the same time, that " he who denieth the Son, denieth the 
Father also;" and that" he who hath not the Spirit of Christ, 
is none of his." From the last communication of " Amicus," 
it appears that he is determined to go on with his quibble on 
the words person and substance* He occupies more than a third 
part of his essay in attempting to prove that we must either be- 
lieve in the existence of three Gods or of no God. Our faith is 
and ever has been, that there are three persons in the divine 
essence, substance or Godhead — three persons in one divme nature. 

We defy our opponents to shew that this faith is absurd. 
They may misrepresent and quibble as much as they please, but 
let them remember that quibbling* misrepresentation and ridicule, 
are not argument. 

" Amicus" in his concluding remarks, has confounded the 
terms, Father, Son and Spirit, making them to «< mean the same 
thing when applied to the Deity." it follows then from this 
explanation, that when it is said, that " God sent his Son into 
the world," it is only meant that " God sent himself/ 1 /" That 
when it is said : " the FatFier will send the Holy Ghost" — it is 
meant ft the Father will send himself/ / /" The absurdity of 
such an interpretation of Scripture will fully appear from John 
xvi. 7 ; Christ there speaking to his disciples, says : " It is expe- 
dient, 1 ' &c. (see the whole passage.) Now if Christ and the Com- 
forter or 'Holy Ghost, mean the "same thing," then if Christ 
had not gone away, the Comforter or Holy Ghost would have 
been with the disciples; for Christ and the Holy Ghost (ac- 
cording to "Amicus") mean the same thing. But according to 
the text, the Holy Ghost or Comforter was not present with the 
disciples ; for Christ says : " If I go not away, the Comforter 
will not come," and " if / depart, I w ill send him unto you." 
Christ and the Holy Ghost must then be distinct and separate, 
for the Spirit is called another Comforter, he is not, therefore, 
the same with Christ. From this it is plain that the interpre- 
tation of " Amicus" is as opposite to the text, as darkness is to 
light. 

" Amicus" has given us his view and the views of your so- 
ciety, on the divinity of Christ; we hope he will be kind 
enough to proceed and let us know what you believe concern- 
ing the "atonement" — "mediation" — "intercession," &c. of 
our Saviour, and oilier subjects connected with them. If " Ami- 
cus" should feel any reluctance to proceed to these subjects, 
especially to the " atonement," we would remind him that " truth 
does not fear the light." PAUL-. 



SY6 

Seventh-day, $th mo. ?, 1822. 

LETTER XXXV. 

In my present opponent I bad hoped to find an antagonist 
prepared to meet me on the ground of argument, to discuss any 
point relating to a doctrine, which he tells us** is very import- 
ant, and ought to be well understood ."' « Paul" had manifested 
an usual degree of anxiety to bring it before the public. He 
seemed to forget the Scripture admonition : « Let not him that 
girdeth on the harness boast himself as he that putteth it off," 
1 Kings xx. 11. He seemed to triumph as a victor, ere the battle 
was begun ! ! ! If my readers have any curiosity to see the 
most singular specimen of gasconade, that perhaps a century 
has produced, let them consult his xxixth Letter, page 312 ! — 
Instead, however, of meeting me on the ground of fair* argu- 
ment and rational investigation, he evades or tries to evade all 
my deductions by saying : " Amicus appears to be determined 
to go on with his quibble on the words person and substance. He 
occupies more than a third of his essay in attempting to prove 
that we must either believe in the existence of three Gods or of 
no God." — Now can 6i Paui," be so weak as to believe, that this 
kind of answer to my arguments will satisfy a discerning pub- 
lic ? Does he suppose that his character as an anonymous writer 
will have so much weight with our readers, that they will for 
his sake reverse the order of things — call argument « a quibble," 
and dignify a quibble with the title of argument? According to 
our best lexicographers « a quibble is an equivocation, an eva- 
sion.'" Is the «* more than one third of my essay'' alluded to, 
an equivocation ? — Is it an evasion — an attempt to escape the 
force of my opponent's arguments? It is ridiculous to affirm 
it ! ! ! But it is very clear that this reply to arguments which 
he cannot refute is a mere quibble — an evasion of the most con- 
temptible kind/ and I have very little doubt but the candid 
reader will perceive, that such a reply to « more than one third 
part of my essay," is little less than a confession that it cannot 
be refuted ! ! ! Now let my opponent 6i remember, that quib- 
bling is not argument ! ! !" 

That the " persons" composing his "triune God," must be 
either finite or infinite, is a position that cannot be rejected ! 
They must be one or the other. There is no alternative ! That 
they must be substantial or unsubstantial is equally certain ! 
But I proved from premises granted by my opponents, that 
they we finite and unsubstantial! — of course, they must believe 
either in an unsubstantial, imaginary, unreal God, or that three 
finite, unreal, imaginary persons, although " distinct and sepa- 
rate," can make ONE SUBSTANTIAL, REAL, INFINITE 



•577 

GOD ! ! ! — Now « we defy our opponents to show that this faith 

is not absurd" ! ! ! 
It has been seen by our readers that the terms " TRINITY'' 

and « PERSONS" as applied to the Deity, are not to be found 

in the saered volume ; the advocates of a " plural God," have 
therefore been forced to resort to the fallible standard of human 
reason for support. Whether this standard has supported them 

or not, my readers will already be able to judge. Mystery and 
absurdity are hitherto the undeviating companions of their pro- 
gress. Their doctrine is not only above reason, but contrary to 
reason ! It is supported, not by Scripture, but by their own 
conclusions, drawn from premises which have not been granted. 
It is such a mass of contradiction and inconsistency, that its 
ablest defenders have been embarrassed and confused at every 
turn ! ! ! That this is the situation of " Paul" will now appear ! 
In his last address my opponent says : " the subject which at 
present engages our attention is very important, and ought to 
be well understood; it enters into the essence of the Christian 
religion." — Here « Paul" is inconsistent with himself, for if 
he be correct, this subject never can be understood — « It i3 a 
mystery"— It is impossible to understand it ! DR. MILLER 
in his « Letters on Unitarianism," acknowledges, that he does 
not even comprehend the meaning of the terms he uses — of 
course he does not understand the subject ! It is therefore a 
subject, not for the understanding, but for the exercise of im- 
plicit faith; not in the doctrine of the Bible, but in the gross 
and carnal construction of the Trinitarians ! ! ! The doctrine 
of the TRINITY, like that of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 
sets reason at defiance, and leaves us nothing to rest upon, but 
the opinions of weak and fallible men ! — And it is a solemn 
truth, that this implicit faith is now, and ever has been, the 
main pillar of priest-craft ; only make the people believe that 
a human interpretation of the Scriptures, though violating the 
plain dictates of reason, is the standard of ORTHODOXY, 
and our religious liberty will then be committed to the keep- 
ing of those, who have never failed to crush it when they had 
it in their power. It is a favourite idea of the clergy, that when 
a layman expresses a sentiment on religious subjects, he is 
« stepping out of his province." This doctrine of implicit faith 
contrary to reason, contains the very essence of POPERY ! ! ! 

In my last 1 replied to « Paul's" arguments drawn from the 
text, John xiv. 16, 17. I shewed from the express language of 
our Lord himself, that the terms « Father," « Son" and " Holy 
Spirit," when applied to the Divinity, mean the same thing — 
that this must be true, appears not only from the many piain 



378 

Scripture passages I then adduced, but from the plainest rea- 
sons, some of which I will now exhibit. 

It is acknowledged by all that there is but one God, of course 
but one divine nature. Our opponents hold, that " God sub- 
sists in three distinct and separate divine persons." Now, if these 
divine persons be distinct and separate, then there must be three 
distinct and separate divinities. This conclusion is substanti- 
ated by the following considerations: The Trinitarians make 
their " three persons" three distinct and separate Holy Spirits I 
That the Father is a Holy Spirit they cannot deny, for Christ 
speaking of the Father, says : "God is a Spirit," John iv. 24. 
That Christ the Saviour is a Holy Spirit, is equally certain, 
for the Apostle expressly says : " God hath sent forth the Spi- 
rit of his Son into your hearts." Gal. iv. 6. " If any man have 
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. viii. 9. That 
the third person in their Trinity is a HOLY SPIRIT, is evi- 
dent from this appellation. Thus we have three distinct and 
separate divine and holy Spirits ; and as every Spirit must have 
a being, of course there must be three distinct and separate Di- 
vine Beings.' Here we are helplessly and hopelessly landed in 
TRITHEISM, unless we turn away from Athanasian idolatry, 
and embrace this simple truth, that the terms " Father," " Son," 
and " Holy Spirit," mean the same thing when applied to the 
divinity. 

But "Paul" says I have "confounded the terms Father, 
Son, and Spirit." If there be any weight in the charge, it lies 
equally heavy against our Lord himself, as well as against the 
Evangelists and Apostles, as may be shown by numerous pas- 
sages of Scripture. 1 will instance a few of them : — "He that 
hath seen me, hath seen the Father," John xiv. 9. " /and my 
Father -Are one." John x. 30. This point is made remarkably 
clear by that memorable passage of the Apostle to the Romans, 
chap. viii. I will quote a part of it, and refer my readers to 
the chapter, with the expression of a wish that they would read 
it attentively. " Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so 
be that the Spirit of God dwell in yon ;" " now if any man have 
not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his ; and if Christ be in you 
the body is dead because of sin. Bui if the Spirit of him that 
raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up 
Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by 
his Spirit that dwelleth in you" " Know ye not that your body 
is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you." 1 Cor. vi. 19. 
Now, from our Lord's expressions it is manifest, that the terms 
« Father" and " Christ," when applied to the Divinity, means 
the same thing — they are used synonymously. And it is equal- 
ly evident, from the words of the Apostles, that the terms 



379 

"Spirit of God''— " Spirit of Christ"— and "Holy Spirit,' 3 
mean the same thing: tiiey are aii mentioned indiscriminately, 
as that one holy, divine, quickening, sanctifying principle, that 
** dwelleth in" true believers, and without which we cannot be 
Christians ! Will my opponent dare deny this position? If not, 
how can he avoid this conclusion, that he has charged our Lord 
and his Apostle with "confounding the terms Father, Son and 
Spirit?" in other words, he has charged them with denying the 
orthodox doctrine of the <4 Trinity." 

It is a good remark of " Phipps," that the inspired writers 
" often speak of things promiscuously." — Sometimes they 
speak of Christ as « the Word," which respects his divinity— 
" sometimes as man, or as in the flesh, and sometimes compre- 
hending both senses in the same words. For want of a right 
understanding properly to distinguish them, men are apt to 
jumble and mistake one for another. Hence arise disagree- 
ment, clashing and jangling about the true sense of Scripture, 
and trying it by the notions and systems they have espoused, 
instead of trying them by the truth, it is no wonder there is so 
much controversy. 1 ' See " Original and present state of man." 
Philad. edit. 1818, page 178, Phipps might have added: " the 
want of this distinction has originated the gross, irrational-, 
and absurd doctrine of the « Trinity.'" 

But my opponent rests the defence of his scheme principally 
upon the expressions: " He shall teach' 7 — « He shall bring all 
things to your remembrance" — " Whom the Father will send.' 9 
I consider the proofs in my last essay sufficient to overturn a 
volume of such arguments. It however appears, that " Paul" 
does not think so. He says, in his last Letter; " it follows 
then from [Amicus'] explanation, that when it is said, that 
God sent his Son into the world, it only meant, that God sent 
himself! that when it is said, " The Father will send the Holy 
Ghost," it meant, the Father will send himself!" — « Paul" could 
hardly have given a clearer proof, either of the grossness of his 
conceptions of the divine nature, which is infinite — or of the 
finite nature of the persons which compose his "triune God." It 
must be obvious to the rational candid inquirer after divine 
truth, that our Lord himself and the inspired penmen used a 
phraseology adapted to the capacity of his children, who, in the 
twilight of religious knowledge, could not comprehend those 
more extended views of the divine nature, which the Gospel 
dispensation was intended finally to introduce! — Thus when it 
is said : " God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount 
Paran." Hab. iii. 3. When the Psalmist said: " Bow thy hea- 
vens, O Lord, and come down." Psalm cxliv. 5, We must, 
upon " Paul's" hypothesis, conclude that God is a finite be- 



580 

ing! that the infinite Jehovah could move from placp to place, 
which is absurd ! ! ! Now what will 6i Paul" say to the follow- 
ing expressions of Christ himself: " He that believeth on me, 
believeth not on me — but on him that sent me ."' — •« He that seeth 
me, seeth him that sent me/' John xii. 44, 45. Is it not obvi- 
ous, from these passages, that he that sendeth and he that is sent, 
are the same, as it relates to the divine nature ? There can be 
but one true answer to this question ! So that all the absurdity 
wbich « Paul" has charged on the interpretation of Amicus, 
falls directly on our Lord himself! ! ! 

Another of « Paul's" " convincing arguments" he deduces 
from the baptism of Jesus. Matt. iii. 16, 17. His argument, 
however, proves him to be as carnal in his notions as the poor 
Jews, who, when Christ told them, " I am the living bread," 
&e. said: " how can this man give us his flesh to eat." John vi. 
51. Any other force in his argument, I am utterly unable to 
perceive ! To suppose one person in the Godhead walking up 
out of the water — while a second person is descending in the 
shape of a dove, and a third person uttering a voice from hea- 
ven, is to give them such a limited existence — so much locality — ■ 
such definite forms, as is altogether inconsistent with the omni- 
presence and infinity of the ineffable God. To suppose that He 
who is inscrutable, who can manifest himself in what way he 
pleaseth, and in millions of places at the same instant, is so di- 
vided, does indeed appear " a gross and carnal conception." 
But M Paul" asserts, that « if this passage does not teach the 
doctrine of three persons in the divine nature, it teaches no- 
thing, and is entirely without meaning." Before he made this 
groundless assertion with so much confidence, he ought to have 
remembered, that the Evangelist John gives us a much stronger 
and infinitely more rational cause for this miraculous display of 
outward evidence ! Its design, as expressed by John, was, that 
Jesus should be made manifest to Israel. " He that sent me to 
baptize with water," says the Baptist, " the same said unto 
me— Upon jyhofh thou shalt see the Spirit descending and 
remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the 
Holy Ghost." It^eems to have been particularly intended to 
open the understanding of John the Baptist, and convince him 
that this was indeed the Messiah that should come ! And here- 
by John was enabled, when he saw Jesus walking, to say to the 
Jews: " Behold the Lamb of God !" John i. 31, 33, 36. 

The words used by our Lord, when he sent forth his minis- 
ters, Matt, xxxiii. 19, and the Apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. 
xiii. 14, add no strength to the position of my opponent. The 
terms « Father," « Son" and « Holy Spirit," refer us to one 
divine power* life, and virtue, as I have before abundantly 



381 

proved. To baptize in the name, or into the name, (as the ori 
ginal has it,) is to bring the soul under the power which only 
comes from God. To baptize into the name of Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost, is to baptize into the power of « God the Father," 
which was manifested to the patriarchs and prophets ; into the 
same power as manifested in the « Son" by miracles, and signs, 
and wonders which God did by him. Acts ii. 22, — into the pow- 
er of the Holy Spirit, as manifested in the Apostles and others, 
on the day of pentecost, and since, in a greater or lesser degree 
in every real Christian ! And this same divine power, which 
God manifested *' at sundry times and in divers manners," to 
his children under former dispensations, is appointed of him, 
for their M salvation to the end of the world !'' The « name" 
of God and Christ is in the Scriptures, by a metonymy, gene- 
rally used for « the power." 

The passage 1 John i. 7, which Amicus termed spurious, 
« Paul" has ventured to quote in support of his scheme. In 
doing this, he has manifested but little sagacity, not duly con- 
sidering that a weak argument is far worse than none ! This 
text, « there are three that bear record in heaven," &c. is un- 
doubtedly an interpolation. For this sentiment I will give the 
following reasons : — It is not found in any Greek manuscript, 
written within fourteen hundred years after Christ; nor in any 
Latin manuscript, written earlier than the ninth century. It 
is not found in any of the ancient versions, nor is cited by any 
of the Greek Ecclesiastical writers ; although to prove a Tri- 
nity, they have cited the words both before and after this text. 
It is not quoted by any of the Latin fathers, even when their 
subject would have led them to appeal to its authority. It is 
first cited by Vigilius of Tapsus, a Latin writer of no credit, 
near five hundred years after Christ, and by him it is supposed 
to have been forged! Since the reformation, it has been omit- 
ted as spurious in many editions of the New r Testament. In 
the two first of Erasmus— in those of Aldus, Colinoeus, Zuin- 
glius, and lately of Griesbach. It was omitted by Luther in 
his German version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIIL 
Edward VI. and Elizabeth, it was printed in a different type 
from the rest, or included in brackets. Archbishop Newcomb 
omits it, and the Bishop of Lincoln expresses his conviction that 
it is spurious, Adam Clarke says, that out of one hundred and 
thirteen manuscripts extant, written before the invention of 
printing, it is found but in one, and that one of comparatively 
recent date, Clarke has brought together such a mass of evi- 
dence, proving the passage spurious, that it is wonderful any 
writer, making the least pretension to candor or learning, should 
venture to insist on it as genuine ! 

'< Paul" advises Amicus to be " very careful how he pro- 



382 

iiounces a part of God's Word spurious, Jest he should commit 
that sin which would take away his part out of the book of life. 
Amicus advises "Paul" to be extremely cautious how he 
« adds to the words of the book," lest he partake of " the 
plagues that are written in the book !" Rev. xxii. 18. 

My opponent, by making long quotations from Trinitarian 
writers, has discovered an easy way of filling up his paper. It 
must be much more comfortable to make lengthy extracts from 
friendly authors, than to answer difficult questions, or refute 
conclusions drawn from premises already conceded ! I wish 
« Paul" all the satisfaction which such a course is calculated 
to afford. Nor would I, on this occasion, disturb his repose, 
had he not attempted show that the amiable and excellent Isaac 
Watts could fairly be enlisted as a defender of the indefensible 
doctrine of the « Trinity." Now the truth is, (and I challenge 
my opponent to deny it,) that Dr. Watts, in early life, warmly 
embraced this doctrine — that as he advanced in knowledge and 
religious experience, he became doubtful of its truth — that he 
finally abandoned it — and three years before his death pub- 
lished a work, entitled " Last Thoughts," on this subject— 
from which it appears that he wholly discarded the common no- 
tions of " the Trinity ;" and finally, he died an open and candid 
opposer of the Trinitarian creed. 

That Amicus wished to enlist ** Watts" on my side is not 
true. I place no dependence on the authority of names. It is 
of very little importance to Amicus, who espouses or rejects 
his sentiments, any further than they are calculated to promote 
their truest enjoyment and permanent happiness. I have no 
point to carry, which, in the remotest degree effects my repu- 
tation or my pecuniary interest. Tfuth is my sole object. The 
society of which I am a member, has been as remarkable for its 
zeal in propagating what it deems the truth, as it has been sin- 
gular for its disconnection with the spirit of «« Proselytism." 
We fervently desire that all may come to the knowledge of the 
truth. We desire none to become members of our society, but 
such who first desire it for themselves ; nor is this desire a suffi- 
cient passport to membership with us. To us profession is a 
very weak recommendation — practice is the main point ! We 
deem faith a very good thing, but we hold to the Apostolic sen- 
timent, that " Faith without works is dead." Having no in- 
terest as a religious body, but that which rejoices in the happi- 
ness of all God's creation, we fully adopt the sentiment of our 
Lord, when he said: « He that heareth these sayings of mine, 
and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man that built his 
house upon a rock, and when the storm came it fell not, because 
it was founded on an immovable basis. But he that heareth and 



383 



doth them not, I will liken to a foolish man, who built his house 
upon the sand, which when the storm came, and the rain de- 
scended, fell," because it wanted the essential support of every 
Christian building, the rock Christ Jesus, the efficient author 
of every good work, AMICUS. 



Saturday, September 14, 1822, 

LETTER XXXV. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

" Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Al- 
mighty unto perfection ? It is as high as heaven ; what canst 
thou do? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ? The measure 
thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." Job 
xi. 7, 8, 9. 

Our reply to the numerous, refined, and (in some instances) 
unintelligible explanations of passages of Scripture, attempted 
by ** Amicus," is that the subject of discussion is one, on which 
we do not consider ourselves authorized to reason or dispute ; 
a subject which neither he nor we, nor any finite being is ca- 
pable of explaining or comprehending. This we are plainly 
taught by the passage, which we have just cited. Dr. Dwight 
in writing on this subject, says : « Were my body so large, that 
I could sweep all the fixed stars, visible, from this world, in a 
clear night, and grasp them in the hollow of my hand ; and 
were my soul capacious in proportion to so vast a body, I 
should, notwithstanding, be infinitely too narrow-minded to 
conceive the wisdom of God, when he formed a fly ; and how 
then should I think of conceiving of himself? No; this is the 
highest of all impossibilities. His very lowest work checks and 
represses my vain contemplations. When we think of God in 
this light, we can easily conceive it possible, that there may be 
a Trinity of persons in his nature." We leave it then to the 
presumptuous, to men puffed with pride of intellect, with high 
opinions of their mental capacities and endowments, to attempt 
in vain to pry into and explain subjects that must ever be my- 
steries to man in his present state of existence. (i Secret things 
belong unto the Lord ;" and we are willing that they should. 
It is enough for us to ascertain facts and doctrines, and to have 
a « Thus saith the Lord," for the truth of them*. It is enough 
for us to adore, admire and praise the mystery revealed. 

To the received opinions of men about the plainest things 



3S4 

in nature, almost endless objections may be made, and diffi- 
culties proposed. A fool may ask a wise man a thousand ques- 
tions, which he cannot answer. Still the objections, the diffi- 
culties and unanswered questions have no effect in disturbing 
men's belief of well known facts and well ascertained truths. 
It appears strange to us then, that any man of sense would 
pique himself upon making objections and starting difficulties, 
till he wearies out the patience of his readers. The only cir- 
cumstances that reconcile us to our conduct, in following and 
answering ?* Amicus'' so far in his objections, are, that in con- 
sequence of it, he has more fully disclosed his errors, and we 
have evinced our capacity to answer all his objections and re- 
fute all his arguments that have any show of reason or force. 
These ends being accomplished, we pledge ourselves that, un- 
less we change our sentiments we will not in future weary our 
readers by following « Amicus" through his endless specula- 
tions, refinements and sophistical objections and arguments, 
but will confine ourselves as much as possible to a connected 
and plain statement and refutation of your doctrines and opi- 
nions that yet remain to be discussed, and to a succinct and 
conclusive defence of the truth. 

We are not willing to admit the ipse dixit of ** Amicus," (his 
mere say so) that Dr. Watts abandoned Trinitarian sentiments. 
But if it is true, as he states, that the Doctor did so, three 
years before his death, we still claim him as a Trinitarian. 
Dr. Watts lived to a very advanced age. Now, it is often said, 
and with truth too, of a man when he is very old, « He is no 
longer himself;" Dr. Watts then at the time "Amicus" men- 
tions was not Dr. Watts, he was not himself. In answer to the 
observation of « Amicus" upon 1 John v. 7, we reply, that 
there are men who possess as great « candor and learning" as 
he, who insist on the genuiness of the passage. We do not say 
«« pretension" as he does, for really we think he makes as high 
and arrogant pretensions as any writer we know. When room 
will admit, we shall give our proofs of the authenticity of this 
disputed passage, and we have no doubt but we will satisfy the 
impartial, that it is authentic. 

Our design in this number is to state, in as clear and plain 
a manner as we can, the difference of opinion that appears 
from the present state of the discussion to exist between 
"Amicus" and us, in relation to the nature and essential sub- 
sistence of the divine Being; and to advance some additional 
plain and conclusive arguments in defence of our doctrine. He 
professes to believe in a God of such perfect unity, that it ad- 
mits of no real, but only a nominal distinction. We profess to 
believe in a God of perfect and essential unity, but such as ad- 



385 

tnits of a real and threefold distinction. We purposely at pre 
sent omit the term Trinity, to which «* Amicus" so inveterately 
objects as unscriptural, and take one which the Scriptures cer- 
tainly authorize, as they so frequently use the three terms, 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. From the many passages which 
we have before quoted, and by which we clearly prove a Tri- 
nity, it is evident that the Scriptures point out a distinction of 
three in the Godhead, and it is obviously a real — not a mere 
nominal distinction, but a distinction which ascribes a pro- 
perty to each of the three severally, which does not belong, and 
cannot be communicated to the others severally. Now such a 
distinction '« Amicus" entirely discards. If the Scriptures in- 
tended such an entire unity as he contends for, would they so 
often employ terms, which always in a popular sense, obviously 
imply a real distinction ? No person can hear the terms, Father 
and Son, sending and sent, one being with another, one loving 
and another beloved, without conceiving of a real distinction. 
Now these and similar terms of distinction are applied fre- 
quently in the Scriptures to what we call the three persons in 
thejGroiyiead. We call them persons, because in the Scriptures 
the personal pronouns, I, Thou, and He, are uniformly applied 
to them. The Father and the Son speaking to each other, say 
thou; and they and the Holy Ghost speaking of one another, 
use the pronouns He and They ; and the Scriptures in speaking 
of the three separately, always use the pronoun He. Now what 
other than a person can you conceive speaking to and of another 
in such language — language uniformly considered and called 
personal. Now let « Amicus," from the seat of decision which 
he has proudly and presumptuously erected for himself, pro- 
nounce the sentence of « absurdity, inconsistency." &c. Still it 
must be admitted that God is best acquainted with his own 
nature and essence, and consequently knows best what terms 
are properly and consistently applied to his character or mode 
of subsistence. Let « Amicus" then beware lest he pronounce 
that absurd and inconsistent, which God himself has sanction- 
ed ; and lest he incur the guilt, and fall under the awful con- 
demnation of blasphemy. We finding the Scriptures uniformly 
and obviously holding out a threefold distinction in the Godhead* 
believe, and insist upon it, that there is such a distinction. 
But " Amicus" entirely rejects the distinction and utterly con- 
founds all the distinguishing terms, which the Scriptures are 
so careful to use. Christ is called Mediator. Now Mediator ne- 
cessarily implies parties to be reconciled, and a distinct person 
who reconciles the parties. The Apostle informs us that the 
parties in this case are God and men, and that the Mediator is 
Christ. If nothing but unity in every sense is admitted, where 
49 



SH6 

will a Mediator be found ? for a Mediator must be distinct from 
the parties. You will not say that a mere name can be the Me- 
diator, the Reconciler ! Then the reconciliation would be only 
nominal, not real ; and all men would be yet in their sins, un- 
reconciled, and under the sentence of condemnation and death. 
Awful thought ! Upon this plain statement of the case we 
appeal to candor, common sense and impartiality, whether 
"Amicus" or we have adopted the Scriptural sentiment, con- 
cerning the divine character or mode of subsistence. We adopt 
an opinion that embraces a threefold distinction, a distinction 
uniformly, and every where spoken of in the Scriptures. He 
entirely rejects all real distinction, and in defiance of the most 
plain and distinctive Scriptural terms. 

We proceed now to prove the truth of our doctrine by argu- 
ments derived from the Scriptures, from facts and history com- 
bined. We have heretofore taken our proofs wholly from the 
Scriptures. We now call to our aid facts, which are almost the 
only proper instruments for such short-sighted, finite creatures 
as we are, to wield in argument. We know little else than fact. 
We are totally unacquainted with the nature or essence of the 
smallest thing in creation. How then can we presume to under- 
stand or explain the essence of the great Creator of all things. 
No doubt when we speak of facts « Amicus" will apply to them 
his favourite term, gross. And doubtless they will prove too 
gross, stubborn and unwieldy for him. Refining appears to be 
his chief talent. But we rejoice for truth's sake that scepticism 
and mysticism with all their ingenuity have never yet invented 
an alembic that can refine away facts. Let them put them into 
their hottest crucible, they will still to their great mortification 
come out stubborn facts. These things premised, we proceed 
to our arguments. 

The ancient Jews and primitive Christians worshipped the 
true God. 

They worshipped the Triune God. Therefore, the Triune 
God is the true God. 

Our major or first proposition we presume is admitted. The 
minor or second, perhaps, may be denied. We must therefore 
prove it. We have a host of testimony ; but have room to ad- 
vance only a small part. That the ancient Jews worshipped a 
Triune or three-one God, is evident from their verbal declara- 
tions and their numerous symbols. The Jewish commentators 
say : « there are three degrees in the mystery of Aleim, or 
Klohim ; and these degrees they call persons." The Author 
of the Jewish Book, Zohar, thus comments on these words. 
The Lord and our God, and the Lord are one. The Lord or 
Jehovah is the beginning of all things, and the perfection of all 






387 

things, and is called the Father. The other or our God, is the 
depth or fountain of sciences, and is called the Son. The 
other, or Lord, He is the Holy Ghost who proceeds from them 
both. In the writings of Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, or Judah 
the holy, there is this remarkable sentence, declaring the doc- 
trine of the Jewish church in the most explicit manner : •« God 
the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit ; Three in Unity, 
One in Trinity." One symbol used by the Jews to denote 
God, was a square enclosing three radii, or points, disposed in 
the form of a crown. The crown seems to have denoted the 
dignity and supremacy of the object designed, and the number 
three, the three persons in the Godhead. Another symbol was 
an equilateral triangle, with three small circles at the angles 
and the letter Jod inscribed over the upper angle. The three 
sides indicated the three persons of the Godhead; and the 
equal length of the sides, denoted their equality ; while the 
letter Jod was a direct proof that Jehovah was intended by the 
emblem. The three circles probably denoted the perfection of 
the three persons. You see then, how far "Amicus" is correct 
in calling " it a slander upon the Jews, to say that they held 
the doctrine of the Trinity." We shall now prove that the pri- 
mitive Christians also believed in a Trinity of persons. "Justin 
Martyr, one of the most ancient of the Fathers, agrees with us 
(says Calvin) in every point.*' Tertullian asks the question, 
and answers it himself: "How many persons suppose you 
(saith he) there are? As many as there are names." Gregory 
Nazianzen, speaking of the Trinity, says : " 1 cannot think of 
the one, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendor of 
the three; nor can I clearly discover the three, but I am sud- 
denly carried back to the otie." Here again we see how absurd 
it is to speak of the doctrine of the Trinity being a part of the 
orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic faith. It was believed long 
before that church existed. We have now proved that the an- 
cient Jews and primitive Christians believed in, and conse- 
quently worshipped a Triune God. This was our minor propo- 
sition. It being proved true, and the major proposition being 
granted, the conclusion also must be true : therefore, the Triune 
God is the true God. 

To foretell future events, belongs unto God. The fulfilment 
of predictions will in many instances prove and develope the 
nature and essential character of God. This will appear to be 
the case with respect to the predictions which we shall now ad- 
duce, God by the prophet (Isa. li. 5) says : « The isles shall 
wait upon me, and on my arms shall they trust." Ps. ii. 8, 
God says to Christ: " Ask of me and I shall give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 



388 

earth for thy possession." Is. xi. 9, It is said : " The earth shall 
be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." 
Is. lii. 8, It is said : " The watchmen of Zion shall lift up the 
voice ; with the voice together shall they sing : for they shall 
see eye to eye." This last prophecy can never be fulfilled 
with respect to your society, whilst your present customs pre- 
vail, for you never sing. Neither do your watchmen begin to 
see eye to eye with other watchmen, as those of other societies 
are beginning to do ; neither can you ever do it, till you are 
entirely new-modelled; for you essentially differ from all 
others. Your society $ therefore, can make no part of the mil- 
lenial church. At that happy period, « there shall be but one- 
fold, as there is one shepherd. " 

The predictions which we have just cited, are at present ful- 
filling. We shall not appeal to facts. The isles of the sea have 
lately begun to wait upon God. Upon what God do they wait? 
and on whose arms do they trust ? Fact says : " they wait upon 
the Triune God, and trust in his arms." Christ is now receiving 
the heathen in Asia, Africa and America for his inheritance. 
What Christ is receiving them? Fact answers: " Christ, the 
second person in the adorable Trinity :" for as such he is every 
where preached to the heathen and received by them. The 
earth is now beginning to be filled with the knowledge of the 
Lord. With the knowledge of what Lord ? Fact replies : " With 
the knowledge of the Lord, whom the Trinitarians preach and 
worship, for the Trinitarians are the only persons who are car- 
rying the knowledge of the Lord to different parts of the earth. 
Can God only predict ?— does the fulfilment of predictions prove 
the true God ? — and do facts universally testify that the predic- 
tions now fulfilling prove God to be Triune ? then the Triune 
God must be the true God. Surely, the only living and true 
God, who abominates idolatry as the highest crime, and speaks 
against false gods in the severest language, would not predict 
events in such a manner, that the fulfilment of them would 
prove the existence of three Gods, and consequently false gods. 
But God has predicted events, the fulfilment of which uniformly 
results in the proof of a Triune God; therefore a Triune God 
cannot be three Gods. 

Again ; take a view of other facts. What but a special Pro- 
vidence could be the cause of the stupendous movements which 
have lately taken place, and still continue throughout Christen- 
dom ? Nothing but the infinite wisdom and omnipotent arm of 
Jehovah could have devised and set in motion the vast, complex, 
yet harmonious and well regulated machinery of Bible, Mis- 
sionary and Tract Societies and Sabbath schools, which is now 
actively and successfully engaged in disseminating the Word 



389 

of truth and of life, among all classes in society—in instructing 
the ignorant — reclaiming the vicious — converting the heathen — 
and thus gloriously preparing the way for the millenial ad- 
vent of Christ, and the ushering in of the latter-day glory of 
Zion. These associations are composed of various denomina- 
tions, which till lately were violently opposed to each other, and 
held no social intercourse, and none hut that God who turneth 
the hearts of men as the rivers of water are turned, could have 
turned so many jarring hearts into the same channel, and unit- 
ed them as the heart of one man. 

Truly, " this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our 
eyes." Now all these associations are composed of those who 
worship the Triune God, and teach and inculcate the doctrine 
of the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Christianity. Is there 
a God in the heavens ? and does he sway an omnipotent sceptre 
over the hearts and actions of men ? and will he suffer his 
glory to be given to another? May, will he come out of his 
place — make bare his arm so that every eye that is not blind 
must see that it is his arm — and exercise a special Providence 
so that his glory should be given to others, to three Gods ! ! ! No, 
this is impossible. But facts declare, that God has exercised 
a special Providence, which gives a large tribute of glory to 
the Triune God, therefore the Triune God is not another God, 
« for God will not give his glory to another." 

Again ; turn your attention to the astonishing, numerous and 
extensive revivals of religion which are taking place in our 
land and in our day : and in these you have another fact to 
prove the truth of our doctrine. It is unnecessary to inform 
you that these are all amongst Trinitarians. To speak of a 

revival of religion amongst Unitarians, or amongst F s 

would make every body stare — would make themselves look 
aghast ! Did the miraculous conversion of three thousand by 
the preaching of Peter, prove that he preached true doctrine I 
Surely the conversion of thousands now by the preaching of 
Trinitarians, must prove also that they preach the true doc- 
trine. The conversion of sinners is the work of God, and God 
will not set his seal to a lie. Did the miraculous healing of na- 
tural diseases, and raising the dead, prove the divinity of 
Christ, and the divinity of the doctrines which the Apostles 
taught ? Will not then the healing of moral diseases and rais- 
ing from the death of sin, prove the divinity of the Agent, and 
of the doctrines which are made the instruments ? Trinitarians 
preach their doctrines, and the morally diseased are healed, 
the vicious are reclaimed — the drunkard made sober — the pro- 
fane made pious — and thousands that were dead in trespasses 
and sins are raised to spiritual life. Ask them who healed 



390 

them and raised them from the dead, and what doctrines were 
the instruments ; and they will answer the Triune God, and the 
doctrines of the Trinitarians. We defy the Unitarians to pro- 
duce such testimony to the truth of their doctrines. Who ever 
heard of their doctrines reforming the vicious, or reclaiming 
the profligate ? W T e have often known them to have the contra- 
ry effect. 

Facts crowd upon facts. Obstinate must be the unbelief, 
inflexible the scepticism, which does not blush and yield ! ! ! 
Until "Amicus" is able to counteract the most plain, forcible 
and plenary testimony— to shut our eyes and close our ears — to 
reason people out of their senses — is able to refine facts into 
non-entities, and realities into phantoms, he will be unable to 
prove our doctrine either false, absurd, inconsistent or contra- 
dictory. Facts crowd upon facts. Go to the awakened and 
convinced of sin — to the contrite in spirit and wounded in heart, 
who have been healed and comforted — go to the beds of the sick 
and dying, and ask them : who awakened and convinced them 
of sin — who healed and comforted them — who consoled them in 
sickness, and attuned their dying lips with the song of victory 
over death and the grave : and they will all answer with one 
voice : The Holy Spirit the Comforter, and Christ the Re- 
deemer, two persons in the adorable Trinity. Hark ! hark ! 
The citizens of the New Jerusalem are chaunting their doxolo- 
gies to the Triune God, saying : « Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God 
Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Hallelujah from 
the ancient Jews and primitive Christians, from isles and con- 
tinents, and from the whole true church, to the Triune God. 
The living, the dying Christians upon earth, saints and angels 
in heaven are singing : « Glory be to the Father, and to the 
Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, 
and shall be evermore, world without end. Amen." PAUL. 

Seventh-day, 9th mo. 21, 1822. 

LETTER XXXVI. 

s * He disappointeth the devices of the crafty 9 so that their hands 
cannot perform their enterprises — they meet with darkness in 
the day time 9 and grope in the noon day as in the night" Job 

v. 12, 13, 14. " He made a pit and digged it, and is fallen 

into the ditch which he made," Psalm vii. 15. 

Under, I trust, a proper sense of the weight and importance 
of the subject which has for some weeks engaged our attention, 



391 

Amicus was not hasty to enter on the discussion of it. He was 
aware of the force of deep rooted prejudices — he was not igno- 
rant that it had engaged and divided men of the greatest talents 
and learning of different religious denominations ; and had little 
expectation that from either of these sources any new matter 
could he brought to illustrate it. It was not, therefore, until 
" Paul" in the most indecent and vaunting style, repeatedly 
dared me to the conflict, that I ventured to enter the list with 
him ! I had not the least doubt that our doctrine was true, that 
it could be defended by the plainest testimony of the inspired 
writers — I was satisfied that our Lord, from whom there should 
be no appeal, had expressly taught it — I knew I had both rea- 
son and revelation on my side — yet, I had doubts of my capacity 
to do justice to the subject ; and, under a due sense of the re- 
sponsibility of the engagement, I very sincerely wished it had 
fallen into abler hands. 

Our readers may suppose, from the specimen of his talents 
which "Paul" had given the public, that Amicus had nothing 
to fear in the contest, when truth was on his side ! But it should 
be recollected, that I had to contend with a professed theolo- 
gian ! — with one who had served a regular apprenticeship to 
the trade, whose life had been devoted to polemical divinity ! — 
And howlfeould a layman tell with what mighty weapons such a 
champion mig;ht be furnished from the redoubtable magazine of 
A COLLEGE ! And then, as in his xxixth Letter, to see him 
like the gigantic Philistine brandishing his arms, and defying 
me to the combat ! — Was it not terrible ? Let my reader only 
turn to that Letter, and place himself for a moment in the situ- 
ation of Amicus, and then say whether I had not some cause 
for diffidence. 

But the conflict is over — the enemy has done his worst — and, 
as might have been reasonably expected, has shown himself as 
weak in the field as he was confident in the cabinet ! ! ! It is 
always a bad sign to see a boasting disposition at the beginning 
of a contest ; it generally indicates ignorance or presumption, 
and is the common harbinger of defeat. 

Let our readers now review the different essays on the sub- 
ject of the ** Trinity :" — let them read them attentively, and 
see, if the great mass of evidence which Amicus adduced in 
support of our doctrine, does not remain untouched by my op- 
ponent! The plainest Scripture text — the most conclusive rea- 
soning — the fairest deductions from premises conceded, all lie 
at his door unanswered, and as I suppose, unanswerable ! He 
has been left with his brethren, where indeed they have placed 
themselves, on the ground of TRITHEISM. It has been re- 
peatedly and irrefutably proved, from the positions and conces- 



S92 

aions of my opponents, that TRINITARIANISM and TRt~ 
THEISM are only different names for the same thing. — That 
they are indentified as the same religion, and must stand or 
fall together ! I know very well that the 1 rinitarians acknow- 
ledge the unity of the deity. If they did not, nothing could shield 
them from the charge of IDOLATRY ! but what signifies a 
profession that God is one, when they at the same time assert 
He is thee? What avails an acknowledgement of his unity when 
they contend for his 'plurality ! 

Now in what a miserable predicament do my opponents stand! 
TRUTH has « disappointed the devices of the crafty, so that 
their hands cannot perform their enterprizes; ,, they have 
« made a pit and digged it, and are fallen into the ditch which 
they have made." 

In my last I stated, that " I hoped in my present opponent, 
to find an antagonist prepared to meet me on the ground of 
argument — to discuss any point relating to a doctrine" which he 
tells us i( is very important, and ought to be well understood." 
I again opened the door for a fair discussion of the points in 
controversy. I hoped that a regard for his character, if not 
for his doctrine, would induce him to come from behind his 
hiding place, and shew himself a manly combatant for his 
faith. But I have been again disappointed! He sh^ffuds him^ 
self in MYSTERY. He tells us he "leaves it to the pre- 
sumptuous ; to men puffed up with the pride of intellect, with 
high opinions of their mental capacities and endowments, to 
explain subjects, which must ever be mysteries to man in his 
present state of existence." What a pity it is that he did 
not think of this before he challenged Amicus, in the «' pre- 
sumptuous" manner of his xxixth Letter ! ! ! What a pity it 
is, that his own « pride of intellect" — his "high opinion of his 
own mental capacities and endowments" did not prevent him 
from exposing his own weakness, and the absurdity of his 
doctrine, in a contest, from which he now so shamefully shrinks 
behind an assumed veil of humility ! ! ! — It appears, however, 
that humility, like gold, " may come a day too late." 

Now only admit for a moment, that doctrines which cannot 
be understood — that points which are contrary to reason, are to 
be embraced as articles of faith, and which, like the absurdities 
of the ATHANASIAN CREED, are to be believed under the 
pain of eternal, hopeless, irremediable torment — and where 
then is the Gospel professor placed? — Unable to steer his own 
course through the LABYRINTH of MYSTERY, he must 
necessarily have a conductor ! and, I assert it on the ground of 
universal experience, and can maintain it on the authority of 
authentic history, that religious professors* under such eircum- 



stances, have ever been the prey of an avaricious priesthood^ 
the slaves or vassals of a mercenary clergy ! ! 

It therefore appears, that the doctrine of the « Trinity" is 
not only at war with the plainest Scripture truth, but is 
equally hostile to our civil and religious liberty. And it is a re- 
markable fact, confirmed by all Ecclesiastical history, that 
from the moment this doctrine was introduced, the peace, the 
harmony, and freedom of the church began rapidly to decline, 
and continued to decline, until she became involved in the gross- 
est darkness, and subjected to the most intolerant and merci- 
less tyranny, that ever was exhibited on the face of the earth ! ! ! 

My opponent in his last Letter has recurred to a hackneyed 
argument of the Trinitarians, — their dernier resort, their forlorn 
hope — their refuge when every other refuge fails ! — As this 
seems to be, in their view, an important fortification, my reader 
will excuse me if I employ a few moments in exposing its weak- 
ness. The argument may be briefly stated in the following 
manner : — "As God is an infinite Being, a finite creature can 
never comprehend him," Now the truth of this position is ad- 
mitted. Amicus has never denied it, either in theory or prac- 
tice ! — But gentle reader, mark the sophistical consequences 
they dra^w from the premises ! " As we cannot fully comprehend 
the deity .^therefore we must believe contradictory propositions con- 
cerning him / — As we cannot •»' find out the Almighty to perfec- 
tion," therefore we can have no certain knowledge of him ! ! !" 
Can any thing be more contrary to Scripture or reason, than 
these conclusions? They may blear the eyes of the ignorant, 
but with a discerning public can only serve to show the weak- 
ness of their cause, and to consign to merited oblivion a doc- 
trine, which is equally repugnant to Scripture and reason ! 

Now I would ask, if we can have no certain knowledge of 
the Deity, why did our Lord say : *' This is life eternal, that 
they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent ?" John xvii. 3. Why did he make eternal life to 
depend on a knowledge that could never be attained i — Our 
opponent's conclusion would involve our Lord in an absurdity ! ! ! 

« Paul" dissecting a text, tells us: "secret things belong 
unto the Lord ;" but let us hear what immediately follows ; 
** the things that are revealed, belong unto us and to our chil- 
dren forever." Deut. xxix. 19 Now'that GOD IS A " HOLY 
ONE" and not a HOLY THREE, is a truth as clearly reveal- 
ed in the sacred volume as any other. His divine attributes 
of goodness — mercy — love — light— power — wisdom and truth, 
are also revealed to us : — and we have unquestionable evidence 
ot his immensity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipresence ! 
The question is not whether we can comprehend these attrt- 
50 



394 

butes. It is admitted that " man in his present state of existence 
never can fully comprehend them." The only question that can 
have any weight in the present discussion, is, — Whether they 
contradict our reason ? I presume no one will assert that they 
do! But, that "God subsists in three distinct and separate 
divine persons, each having his own distinct, intelligent nature," 
is a position that contradicts both reason and revelation. It is 
downright TRITHEISM, and ought to be rejected by every 
reverent believer in the Holy Scriptures, which expressly 
teach us, that " Jehovah is one, and his name one," and that 
He is the " Only wise God our Saviour." 

I will now briefly notice some of the remarks, I cannot say 
arguments, of my opponent ; for his whole address abounds 
with bare unsupported assertions : " his mere say so," and is, 
I think, the must puerile attempt to support a sinking cause, 
that has lately met the public eye ! 

tt It is enough," says he, « for us to ascertain facts and doc- 
trines ; and to have a Thus saith the Lord, for the truth of 
them." By this sentence he would have his reader believe, 
that there was in the Bible some such text as this : " Thus 
saith the Lord," J subsist in three distinct and separate persons, 
between whom there is a real distinction, a distinction which as- 
cribes a property to each of the three severally, which does not be- 
long and caiinot be communicated to the others severally — 1 am a 
God of perfect and essential\ unity, yet not such an entire unity 
hut that my parts subsist separately — and these parts or persons, 
have each distinct and separate offices to perform in the manage- 
ment of my concerns.'' Now what a low attempt is this to im- 
pose on his reader? Does he suppose the public are like a well 
managed priest-ridden congregation, who will take for granted 
any thing the Parson says? Knowing as he does, that the terms 
which express his Tritheistieal doctrine are not to be found in 
the Bible, he would nevertheless make us believe that he 
had a « Thus saith the Lord" for the support of his scheme ! ! ! 

Again, he says : "It is enough for us to adore, admire, and 
praise the mystery revealed." Here he tells us the mystery is 
revealed; and in the same paragraph declares: "it must ever 
be a mystery to man in his present state of existence" — that 
" neither he (Amicus) nor we, nor any finite being, is capable 
of comprehending if ! ! ! — To admire at such a " mystery re- 
vealed," is very natural ! — to adore and praise it, must be a pie- 
ty like that of the Athenians, who erected an altar" TO THE 
UNKNOWN GOD ; whom therefore" said the Apostle " ye 
ignorantly worship." Acts. xvii. 23. 

Again " Paul" says : " It appears strange to us that any man 
of sense would pique himself upon making objections, and start- 



395 

mg difficulties, till he wearies out the patience of his readers." 
Very strange indeed! But how unaccountable must it have 
been to the Papists, when the Reformers piqued themselves 
upon making objections to the worship of images — the granting 
of indulgences, &c. — and when they started difficulties to the 
mystery of Transubstantiation, till they wearied the patience of 
their readers ! ! ! Was it not intolerable ? Now Amicus had the 
simplicity to suppose, it was the duty of an opponent to make 
objections, and start difficulties to doctrines which he consider- 
ed anti-christian and unscriptural. He also supposed it was the 
place of those, who vauntingly broached the subject, to answer 
objections, and try to remove difficulties. But it seems they 
prefer to let them remain in the way ! No doubt they have good 
reasons for such a preference ! 

Yet « Paul" tells us, that 6i the objections, the difficulties, 
and unanswered questions, have no effect in disturbing men's 
belief of well known facts, and well ascertained truths. 9 ' — Grant- 
ed. But what then? — Does it follow that «« objections, and 
difficulties, and unanswered questions will have no effect to 
disturb men's belief" in whimsical theories, absurd doctrines, 
and contradictory propositions ? If " Paul" should be so credu- 
lous as to hope they will have no such effect, his hope will be 
like that of the hypocrite, which perisheth ! «« Truth is great 
and will prevail." — She has pointed to the doctrine of a " plu- 
ral God," as the contrivance of fallible men ; and thousands of 
the most enlightened Christians are convinced, that it is hos- 
tile to the views of the inspired penmen, and equally inconsist- 
ent with sound reason ! It lies among the dregs of popery $— 
and as the light of truth prevails, the members of Christ will 
cleanse the church from this corrupt invention of antichrist. 
Free inquiry and a perfect toleration of religion are deadly foes 
to error: hence, as might have been expected, in every 
country where the blessings of religions liberty are extended* 
Trinitarianism is on the wane ! — In some places, so many have 
deserted the blood-stained standard of saint Athanasius, as to 
threaten him with perfect desolation ! ! ! 

To what miserable arguments — to what flimsy means, do the 
Athanasians resort for the support of this tottering standard ! I 
will now notice a few of them, and endeavour to shew their 
weakness. 

1st. We are told, that unless we admit the division of the 
Deity into three parts, we can have no Mediator — no Recon- 
ciler ! — that « a Mediator must be distinct from the parties," 
otherwise "reconciliation would be only nominal, 99 that is, that 
" God," who « was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him- 
self," was only a nominal reconciler — of course like the God of 



Trinitarians, as described by " Paul," a finite, unsubstantial, 
unreal God ! The doctrine of my opponent leads us to the fur- 
ther conclusion, that God, the ever blessed fountain of mercy, 
cannot be reconciled to a repenting sinner, unless some *< dis- 
tinct and separate person' step in between them as a procuring 
cause of pardon ! — that He is an implacable, merciless kind of 
Being, who cannot forgive his erring children! — that He must 
have satisfaction for every debt, to the « uttermost farthing! ! !" 
Now 1 freely confess, that these views are utterly repugnant 
to ours. We cannot make a compassionate Creator worse than 
that M wicked servant," who had no compassion on his fellow, 
and was therefore delivered to the tormentors. Matt, xviii. 
32, 33, 34. We believe, that Christ, the only means of sal- 
vation, is God's free gift to man , — is the fruit of his own im- 
measurable mercy : — is his own blessed spirit manifested to 
the souls of his rational family, for their reconciliation and re- 
demption : " For God so loved the World, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not pe- 
rish, but have everlasting life." John iii. 16. « Upon this 
plain statement of the case, I appeal to candor, common sense, 
and impartiality, whether we have not adopted the Scriptural 
sentiment concerning the divine character," — and also, whether 
the doctrine of my opponent does not degrade the God of love, 
below the character of the ungrateful and wicked servant, 
whose conduct was so severely censured by our blessed Lord ! ! ! 
2d. Our opponent tells us that « no person can hear the terms, 
Father and Son, sending and being sent — One being with an- 
other — One loving and another beloved, without conceiving of a 
real distinction; 99 and yet our Lord himself tells us distinctly, 
that « he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me, 99 John xii. 45— 
"He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him 
that sent me." John xii. 4*. — « He that hath seen me, hath 
seen the Father. 99 John xiv. 9. — " I and my Father are one," 
John x. 30. Now it seems our Lord himself cannot satisfy 
these captious Trinitarians ! they are so rivited to the opinions 
of saint Athanasius, that even Christ cannot root out their car- 
nal notions, nor convince them that the terms Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, when referred to the Deity, mean the same thing / / / 
That there is a personal distinction between the man Christ 
Jesus, and " God" who " was in Christ reconciling the world 
unto himself," may easily be conceived ; and that this distinc- 
tion may afford a rational ground for the use of the terms, 
" Father and Son, sending and being sent, loving and being be- 
loved," is very evident ; — but hence to infer, that God is divid- 
ed into parts, and portioned out between three individual 



397 

f s, appears to be a very irrational and unscriptural con- 

s lee ! 

Mj pponent now leaves the ground of Holy Writ, and 
ru o Mie Cabbalistical doctors for support — first to rabbi 
Sr Ben Joaehi, author of the book Zohar or Sohar, who 

livei : the second century! — then to rabbi Juda Hakkadosh, 
who wording to Dr. Lardner, wrote the Misehnaone hundred 
and < r»otv j^-ars after Christ; though some learned authors 
suppose it was not written until the middle of the fifth century. 
Their works are a despicable jumble of corrupt Jewish tradi- 
tions, with the pagan philosophy of the Oriental and Alexan- 
drian h -. iiools; and have undoubtedly been enlarged by addi- 
tions from the popish doctors. They have been largely used 
by Maurice in his *- Indian Antiquities," to whom m> ingenious 
opponents are indebted for the most of their ridiculous theories! 
Here *<Paul" gets his notion, that Elohim is a plural noon, and 
indicates exactly three parts in the Godhead ! Here he finds his 
wonderful** square inclosing three radii or points, disposed in 
the form of a crown;" and here his famous *> equilateral tri- 
angle, with three small circles at the angles, and the letter 
Jod, inscribed over the upper angle ! ! !" Now, 1 think, a mi- 
nister of the Gospel must be painfully pinched, when forced to 
refer to such a polluted source, for proofs of his doctrine ! Yet 
it must be acknowledged, that his doctrine is worthy of such 
proofs. It may be better to have a Cabbalistic foundation than 
none at all ! Well did our Lord say, to such lovers of the Cab- 
bala : " Ye have made the commandment, of God of none effect 
by your tradition." Matt. xv. 6. 

Now I would thank " Paul" to produce us one Jewish Trini- 
tarian author, who lived before the Christian era ; that we may 
have an opportunity of doing justice to his merits. The Tar- 
gums of Onkelos and Jonathan, are the most ancient Jewish 
writings extant, the Scriptures excepted. It is supposed they 
were written before the advent of Christ. Will " Paul" please 
to tell us whether they teach the doctrine of the Trinity : for 
if it was ever believed by the Jews, 1 think it probable we 
shall find it in these Targums ; which were expressly written 
to explain their Law to them, after their return from Babylon- 
ish captivity. 

If «• Paul's" « host of testimony" is not of better character 
than his ** advance" guard, it will be very easy to route it. 
« One" little Gospel text ** will chase a thousand" of them, " and 
two put ten thousand to flight." One single sentence, from 
the lips of our Lord, is of more value than all the laboured 
nonsence in Maurice's work ! ! ! 



398 

4th. •« Paul" adduces the sentiments of the Catholic Fathers 
to support the doctrine of the " Trinity !" I have long ago 
proved, that they were members of an apostatized church; 
and if necessary can bring abundant testimony further to cor- 
roborate this truth. I therefore leave him, with the advice, 
to seek better witnesses than those who so widely departed, in 
a variety of instances, from the doctrines and practices of the 
primitive church ! 

5th. My opponent now brings to view the establishment of 
Missionary Societies, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity ! ! ! 
This is an argument of a new character ! ! ! He thinks nothing 
short of divine power, could produce such vast effects ! — and 
such effects produced through the agency of Trinitarians, must 
show that the Deity is propitious to the doctrine of a compound 
God ! Now I may inform « Paul,'* that many at least as dis- 
interested as himself, and perhaps quite as good judges in the 
case, believe, that plenty of money can produce as great effects 
as these ! One of your own writers has told us how many dol- 
lars it will take to evangelize the world ! 1 1 — The United States, 
paying seven hundred and forty -eight millions, three hundred and 
twenty-three thousand dollars, will, he tells us, be our proportion 
of the expence ! ! ! Now to evangelize the world, is a much 
greater work than any thing yet done by the Trinitarians ! 
Oh ! the mighty power of money jff 

The rest of " Paul's" last essay is as singular a substitution 
of ranting for argument, as any thing I have seen in modern 
times. If any of his readers have been edified by it, I congra- 
tulate them on their possession of the valuable faculty of being 
easily pleased ! 

I will close this essay by observing that « Watts," whom my 
opponent still claims as a Trinitarian, entirely renounced the 
doctrine of the « Trinity" before he was seventy years of age, 
and when in the full possession of his faculties and mental vi- 
gour ! as I have now in my possession authentic documents to 
prove ; want of room only prevents me from inserting them. 
So that all the weight of Watts' character, lies against a doc- 
trine winch he renounced, after the fullest investigation — after 
the most extensive research, and a long experience of its un- 
satisfactory nature. AMICUS. 



399 

Saturday , September 28, 1822. 

LETTER XXXVI. 

ON THE TRINITY. 

•* Jl man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition 
reject ; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, be- 
ing condemned of himself." Tit. iii. 10. 

I have nearly done with this subject. My object at the first 
was not to go into a full detail of the arguments for the Trinity ; 
but to go just far enough to draw forth your sentiments and 
show to the world that you were J&nti-trinitarians. This point 
being now established beyond all doubt, the public will acquit 
me of the charge of slander, in asserting that you do not wor- 
ship the Christian's God. I am content to rely on the few but 
irrefutable arguments already advanced, and to proceed to an- 
other subject. To silence a loquacious opponent, is as impossi- 
ble-as to stop the wind. You may turn it aside, you may screen 
yourself from its attacks, but it will still blow on. 

The pen of my ingenious opponent reminds me of the scold- 
ing woman's tongue, that did not cease to brandish itself even 
after she was dead. Some animals will continue to move their 
tails long after you have bruised their head. 

On a former occasion I have shown, that in the rejection of 
baptism and the Lord's supper, you refused to wear even the 
badges of Christianity ; — in the substitution of internal light 
for the Holy Scriptures, it was fully proved you rejected the 
only rule of Christianity ; — and now it has been proved, in your 
denial of the Trinity, that you reject the God of Christianity. 
You pretend to hold the «* divinity of Christ" because you hold 
that the Deity dwelt in him 9 in a supereminent manner. If this 
were all his divinity, you might ascribe the same honours to 
Moses, or the Apostle Paul, or George Fox, or any other saint ; 
for every Christian is 6( a temple of the Holy Ghost," and if 
this indwelling of the Deity makes a man divine, then all Chris- 
tians are Gods, and to be worshipped ! 

If you will now proceed to give us your views of the atone- 
ment, we shall see your rejection of another fundamental ar- 
ticle of the Gospel. 

As « Amicus" seems perfectly satisfied with what he has done, 
and I hereby declare my self perfectly satisfied, why go farther? 
If you have really slain the doctrine of the Trinity, (as you 
fondly imagine) why continue to maul it after it is dead ? Spare 
your strength, you have other living enemies enough, and next 
attack the doctrine of atonement. The doctrine of the op- 



iOO 

thodox is, that without an infinite satisfaction for sin, God could 
never have pardoned mankind ; that, tois satisfaction was made 
by Jesus Christ our Mediatorial substitute; so that now the 
merits of this satisfaction may be imputed to all who will re- 
pent and believe the Gospel. Do you believe this doctrine i — 
or what do you believe upon the subject ? 

In the hope you will speak as unequivocally on this as on the 
former topics, I will now leave the subject of the Trinity, after 
answering one of your favourite objections, and making two or 
three general remarks. 

It has been a favourite and often repeated objection of yours, 
that " the Father* Son and Spirit, are convertible terms — mean 
6 one and the same thing,' and do not imply any distinction ov 
plurality." 

Answer 1. This is to suppose that the Holy Spirit, in writing 
the Scriptures, did not understand language, or he would not 
have used words without meaning. If " Father" may mean 
« Son," and « Son may mean " Spirit," then " good" may mean 
« evil," and <« heaven" may mean " hell." Upon this princi- 
ple the Bible has no certain signification ; for the above terms 
are as distinct in their meaning as any words in the language. 

2. If these terms mean " one and the same thing, and are 
used synonymously," then we may substitute one for another 
without impairing the sense. Let us try : 2 John 3 : « Grace 
be with you, mercy and peace, from God the Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." 
According to your views, the Apostle might have sought grace 
"from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the Father in truth 
and love!!!" Again; Matt, xxviii. 19: "Go baptize all na- 
tions in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." Now if these terms are "synonymous — mean 
the same thing," why was it not said : « Go baptize in the name 
of the Father, and of the Father, and of the Father ?"— or 
" in the name of the Son, and of the Son, and of the Son ?" — 
or "in the name of the Holy Ghost, and of the Holy Ghost, 
and of the Holy Ghost ! !" Or at the baptism of Christ himself, 
why do we not read, that when the Father came up out of the 
water, the Father was seen descending like a dove, and the 
voice of the Father was heard from heaven, saying, " this is 
my beloved Father in whom I am well pleased ! ! !" Who is 
not shocked at this blasphemous interpretation of Scripture ! 
Yet such is necessarily the interpretation of those who say that 
the terms " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" mean the same thing, 
and deny all distinction in the Deity. 

In the mean time, all Christians would be satisfied that there 



£01 

is a plurality in the Godhead, if there were no other proofs in 
Scripture than the following: 

1. John i. 1, «« In the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were 
made by Him. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt 
among us, and we beheld his glory," &c. 

Here it is evident that the « Word 5 ' means a « person," be- 
cause He is spoken of as Creator, and the personal pronouns 
« him" and « his" are used ; — secondly, that this Word exist- 
ed before he was «? made flesh ;" — thirdly, that this Word « was 
God ;" — fourthly, that this person was separate from another 
person called God, for he was * with God. 1 ' — This is proof 
positive of a plurality in the Godhead, unless you can disprove 
one of these propositions — that the Word « was God," or that 
He was " with God." 

2. Again ; John viii. 17, 18, <( It is written in your law, that 
the testimony of two men (or of two persons) is true. I am one 
that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me bear- 
eth witness of me." Now, either there is no force in our Lord's 
argument, or he and his Father are in some sense two. We 
must doubt his logic, or admit his distinct personality, and of 
course admit a plurality in the Godhead. 

3. Lastly : John xiv. 23, " If a man love me (said our Lord 
Jesus Christ) he will keep my word, and my Father will love 
him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." 
Now it is morally impossible that Jesus Christ as man, or in 
his human nature should dwell in the hearts of all his disciples. 
This would be equal in absurdity to the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation. His indwelling, therefore, refers to his divine nature. 
But the Father also dwells in these disciples, and Christ spake 
of himself as numerically and personally distinct from the Fa- 
ther, when he says : " my Father will love him, and we will 
come unto him and make our abode with him." This is testi- 
mony of the most infallible kind, by him who « knew the Fa- 
ther," that there is a. plurality in the Godhead. 

And here I am willing to leave the subject. If « Amicus" 
will, in his next, give us your views of the atonement, I will 
say no more at present on the Trinity. PAUL. 



51 



402 

Seventh-day, \Qth mo. 5, 1822. 

LETTER XXXVII. 

« And Balatfs anger was kindled against Balaam, and he smote 
his hands together : and Balak said unto Balaam, I called thee 
to curse mine enemies, and behold thou hast altogether blessed 
them. Therefore now flee unto thy place : I thought to promote 
thee to great honour, but, lo> the Lord hath kept thee back from 
honour." JNumb. xxiv. 10, 11. 

How often are the designs of the malevolent frustrated, by 
the very means they use to accomplish them ! — They attack 
the character of the virtuous man — they drag him into public 
view, with the intention to render him odious. They distort 
his sentiments, and attribute his good actions to a bad cause. — 
But their plans prove abortive ! — His virtues recommend him 
to general approbation, and the very attempt to injure him, 
proves a means of introducing him to the public favour ! The 
evil passions which excited his enemies to curse him, are over- 
ruled; and behold in the end it is found they have " altogether 
blessed him!!!" 

But how is it with the instruments of malice and detraction ? 
They cannot even keep their own secrets — they discover their 
designs — they manifest their turpitude, and the " anger," even 
of their former friends, is "kindled against them f 9 whilst the 
language of public disapprobation is distinctly heard, saying: 
'< Therefore now flee unto thy place, for lo, the Lord hath kept 
thee back from honour !'' 

Truth, like pure gold, stands the test of the severest scru- 
tiny — the more it is handled, the brighter it shines. Error, on 
the contrary, like base metal, grows darker by exposure ; and 
if it be intended, that it should retain any value in the mistaken 
opinions of men, its advocates must shroud it in darkness. — 
Like the doctrine of my opponent, it must be carefully wrapped 
in the mantle of mystery ! 

In " Paul's" last Letter he tells us, « his object at the first, 
was not to go into a full detail of the arguments for the Trinity, 
but to gojustfar enoughto draw forth our sentiments, and shew 
to the world that we were Anti-trinitarians !!!" If this were his 
whole design, we grant that he has succeeded — " this point is 
established beyond a doubt." — Behold then, the result of all 
" his prayers, his long anxiety, and earnest inquiry after 
duty !!!" He has written ten long and laboured Letters to us, 
on the subject of the Trinity; and this, not to defend his own no- 
tions, but simply « to shew to the world, 99 what fifty of our 



40: 



writers published more than a century ago !! to wit, t 
were not Trinitarians — that we did not worship TJ 



that we 
HREE 
GODS ! How much the world may feel indebted to him, I 
cannot say — if it was as ignorant as my opponent has supposed, 
I think we ought to be exceedingly obliged to him for his la- 
bours. It is true, he meant to make us odious — but I think 
his intentions have been overruled, and that he has *< altogether 
blessed us !" But I ween the advocates of a « PLURAL 
GOD," will not thank him much for his services ! He has gone 
"just far enough" to prove them TRiTHEISTS — to expose 
them as worshippers of three separate divine Beings — three dis- 
tinct Holy Spirits— THREE GODS! And then, instead of 
fully defending them in the hour of trial, he has ignoblv left 
the field, and retired to the shades of mystery and darkness; the 
gloomy abode of bats; or, as the prophet expresses it, "a 
court for owls." Isaiah xxxiv. 13. 

But why not " go into a full detail of arguments for the Trin- 
ity?" — Was not this subject, which he tells us is the M very 
foundation of Christianity" — ** the first principle of revealed 
religion," of sufficient importance to induce him to defend it? 
Or do not twcMy-eight columns of the Repository, closely filled 
with his notions on it, suffice for its defence ? Or, have his dis- 
cerning friends admonished him to Si flee unto his place," that 
they may preserve the remnant of their heritage ? Have they 
not said unto our modern Balaam : " We called thee to curse 
our enemies, and behold thou hast altogether blessed them !!!" 

But whether he has been so admonished or not, that his la- 
bours will have a good effect, is pretty certain. The present 
controversy will be one mean among many others, to excite re- 
flection: and in our happy country, where religious liberty 
is yet established by law, to excite refection is to do much toward 
the detection of error, and the propagation of truth. The doc- 
trine of an Infinite Being subsisting in three distinct and separate 
parts, may be retained by some, whose minds were, through 
early education, prejudiced in its favour ; but there is little 
probability that rational and unprejudiced inquirers after truth, 
can ever embrace it. By the latter class, who are undoubt- 
edly numerous, the absurdity of the scheme will be discovered, 
and the monster rejected. 

The real causes which prompted i6 Paul" to attack us in his 
unhandsome way, now more than a year ago, at a time, when 
the Society I advocate was travelling along in its usual quiet 
way, are every day developing themselves. It seems by in- 
formation received from the Calvinists themselves, that they 
are determined to establish an overwhelming Calvinistic influ- 
ence in this country — to use the expressions of their favourite 



4*04 

Lyman Beecher, "a homogeneous influence," so extensive that 
Episcopalians, and Methodists, and other religious societies 
could present no obstacle to tUeir designs, whether ir-reiigious 
or political. For this purpose various plans are in operation. 
Theological Seminaries are to he instituted on so large a scale, 
that five thousand additional Priests are to be spread over the 
United States ; who (according to the avowal of one of their 
clergy, Dr. Burton) having got all the Colleges under their in- 
fluence, the Presidents and instructors might have the address 
to " instill the Calvinistic sentiments without the students being 
sensible of it /" « then," says the doctor, " nine out of ten, when 
they leave the College, will support the Calvinistic doctrine. 
They will go out into the world and will have their influence in 
society. In this way we can get a better support without any 
law, than we have ever had with! — and besides when all our 
Colleges are under our influence, it will establish our senti- 
ments and influence, so that we can manage the civil government 
as we please III" 

In order to institute such seminaries, vast sums of money are 
to be raised ; and Beecher calls eloquently up^n the people to 
give it ! " Give your money to save your country from ruin ! 
Give your money to save millions of our country-men from 
hell ! Give your money, that we may be rescued from a vio- 
lent death and a speedy one, by the hands of ignorance and 
irreligion !" and finally: « Give, that you may provide for your 
children, an inheritance uncorruptible, and undefiled, and un- 
fading in heaven !!!" O the mighty power of money when 
placed without stint in the hands of Calvinistic clergymen !!! 
What a pity it is, that our Lord and his Apostles did not disco- 
ver this admirable plan of providing for posterity an inheritance 
in the kingdom of heaven III" ■ 

What this swarm of Priests are to do when they get fixed in 
snug births, with each a salary of one or two thousand dollars 
a year, we may partly understand from the conduct and con- 
fession of my opponent. One of the first measures to be taken 
is to attack some peaceable religious society, and to be sure to 
select one which they may suppose is either unable or unwilling 
to make any defence. In this attack the young priest is *< not 
to go into a full detail of the arguments for the support of his 
own doctrines, but to go just far enough to draw forth the sen- 
timents of the opposite party ;'' and if he find them not Calvin- 
ists, nor Tritheists, he is to raise the cry of « heretics,'* "in- 
fidels," «* heathens," or « spurious Christians." Thus one 
society after another is to be disgraced and put down, and 
thus the «« homogeneous influence" of Calvinism is to be esta- 
blished over the churches, and over the people, until the ortho- 



405 

dox disciples of saint Athanasius, Augustin, and John Calvin, 
"can manage the* civil government as they please!!" What 
an admirable expedient is this, as Lyman fieecher says, to 
*' render our country great and good and happy !!!" 

How strikingly do such men as my opponent and his accom- 
plices, resemble the mercenary son of Beor and the ministers 
of Balak ! The text says : * And the elders of Moab, and the 
elders of Median departed with the rewards of divination in 
their hands ; and they came unto Balaam, and they spake unto 
him the words of Balak ;'.' and they said : <« Come now therefore, 
I pray thee curse me this people, for they are too mighty for 
me, perad venture I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and 
that I may drive them out of the land." — « Let nothing I pray 
thee hinder thee from corning unto me, for 1 will promote thee 
unto very great honour;'' — and Balaam rose up in the morning 
and saddled his ass, and went with the Princes of Moab. Numb, 
xxii. 6, 7, 16, 17, 21. 

On this passage we may remark, — 1st, It was the elders that 
went to Balaam with the rewards of divination — A powerful 
motive ! — 2nd, « And they said, come now therefore," — that is, 
come for a reward. 3d, " Curse me this people for they are 
too mighty for me." — We are afraid of them unless we have a 
divine or a diviner ! — 4th, But if thou curse them, " peradven- 
ture I shall prevail that we may smite them, and that I may 
drive them out of the land." Calvinism can do nothing without 
an educated clergy — and the clergy can do nothing without a 
reward — and without such a reward, no homogeneous influence I — 
5th, «« Let nothing, 1 pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto 
me." — Every thing must bend to the great concern of smiting 
the people and driving them out of the land ! 6th, < 4 For I will 
promote thee unto venj great honour." — Another powerful mo- 
tive. 7th, "And Balaam rose up early in the morning," — 
Strong motives produce prompt measures ! 8th, « And sad- 
dled his ass' T — procured suitable help! 9th, "And went with 
the Princes of Moab." — Great rewards — much honour — and the 
company of Princes will cause a mercenary Prophet to make 
great exertions!!! 

Here we see the motives offered to Balaam were « RE- 
WARDS AND HONOUR," the very same that are tendered 
to the Balaams of our day ; and that, so publicly, that religious 
Newspapers, from one end of the United States to the other, 
seem to be used, in a great degree, for this very purpose ! — 
« The press,' says the infatuated Lyman Beecher, "must groan 
in the communication of our wretchedness, [for want of a suffi- 
cient number of learned theological priests] and from every 
pulpit in the land, the trumpet must sound long and loud ; — 



406 

Newspapers, Tracts and Magazines must disclose to our coun- 
trymen their danger'' [for want of an educated clergy.] What 
is this trumpet to be sounded for ? Not only to let us know 
our danger, but to « call upon the Pastors and their churches 
for their co-operation" to supply the ministers of Calvinism 
with money ! To let the people know, that « if each church 
would engage to pay at the rate of One dollar a member, the 
result would be, an annual income that would support thousands 
of pious students." If this plan should be adopted, with the 
others recommended by Beecher, what a formidable troop of 
young Balaams should we soon see repairing « to the high 
places of Baal, that they might see the utmost part of the peo- 
ple," and anathematize all who dared to refuse subscription to 
the Calvinistic Creed !!! Numb, xxii.41. 

My opponent, in his xxxvth Letter, has taken the ground, 
that Trinitarian doctrines have been the only means of reform- 
ing the vicious, and reclaiming the profligate ! If this were 
true, it might be some consolation to those, who turning with 
disgust from absurd doctrines, find themselves nevertheless 
obliged to receive them, or suffer clerical anathema. But I will 
suppose, what I presume « Paul" will not deny, that the doc- 
trine of Christ and his Apostles are calculated to reform the 
vicious and reclaim the profligate. Now before he drew his 
sweeping and arrogant conclusion, he ought first to have prov- 
ed that our Lord and his ministers were Trinitarians ! This he 
has utterly failed to do; and though he may avail himself of all 
the strength of the Cabalists, and all the force of particles and 
pronouns, he will ever fail to do ! " The Christian's God" is a 
God of unity — neither compounded of parts, nor divided into 
persons, " God is a Spirit" — one pure, holy Being — not three 
distinct and separate holy Spirits ! « He dwelleth not in tem- 
ples made with hands, neither is worshipped with mens' hands, 
as though he needed any thing;" but "they that worship 
him — [not them] must worship him in spirit and in truth, for 
such he seeketh to worship him; 99 and amongst such we desire 
to be found. John iv. 24. Acts xvii. 24, 25. 

But as my opponent relies on the merits of the Trinitarians, 
for the support of his scheme, my readers will excuse me if I 
meet him on this ground, and spend a few minutes in exposing 
its weakness. In the first place : they have, from their very 
origin, been the most cruel and unrelenting persecutors of their 
fellow believers in Christ, that have ever appeared under the 
name of Christians! They have been almost the only persecutors 
of Christianity, that have unsheathed the sword, and lighted the 
fire of persecution! From the time of the murderous saint 
Athanasiust down to the bloody days of Governor Endicott of 



407 

New England, they have been almost constantly engaged hi 
worrying the lambs of the Christian flock ! To them we owe 
the terrors of the Inquisition — the use of fire and faggots for 
reclaiming heretics — the invention of the rack and the wheel, 
and various other engines of torture, which have disgraced hu- 
man nature, and stained the profession of faith in a meek, Jong- 
suffering, and merciful Redeemer ! ! ! In the second place : 
They have always been the most mercenary professors of reli- 
gion, that the world has produced ! Ever remarkable for the 
love of « the fleece," they have, by Simony, by tythes, by first 
fruits, by church rates, and innumerable Ecclesiastical demands, 
oppressed and impoverished the people ; and to this hour, in 
every land, where they have tlie power, their exactions are con- 
tinued. Where they have not the power, they endeavour to 
supply the defect by influence. And lastly : They have been, 
and continue to be, the most bigoted and illiberal professors of 
the Gospel that can be named ! Not content with the enjoyment 
of their own opinions ; from the pulpit and the press they are con- 
stantly interfering in the concerns of others. Because their neigh- 
bours cannot embrace the most irrational doctrines — adopt 
opinions derogatory to the benevolent character of the Deity, 
and subversives of our best interests ; in fine, because they 
cannot ascribe infallibility to saint Athanasius and his followers, 
the Trinitarians load them with opprobrious epithets and the 
bitterest reflections ! If therefore the criterion of our divine 
Master be of any value : ** Ye shall know them by their fntits," 
they have as little cause of boasting, as any people on earth ! 

Whilst I write these undeniable truths, " facts crowd upon 
facts," which folios upon folios would be inadequate to detail ! 
Facts, which show in the most vivid colours, the dreadful scenes 
exhibited by the Trinitarians ! — But I have no desire to give 
pain to my readers, or to dwell on scenes of a shocking charac- 
ter ! I have made the foregoing statements, merely to rebut 
the arrogant pretensions of my antagonist. If « Paul," how- 
ever, should deny the truth of any one of them, I am prepar- 
ed to prove them by undeniable evidence i 

Happily for our country, the power to produce a revival of 
such scenes is at present taken away. The hand of a benign 
Providence has opened to the professors of the Gospel, an asy- 
lum in our land, where * every man may sit under his own 
vine and under his own fig-tree, and none can make him afraid." 
Mic. iv. 4 : where every religious society may repose in peace, 
and cultivate the virtue which adorn and give dignity to the 
Christian character ! My opponent has endeavoured to disturb 
this repose — he has lighted the torch of discord — he has 
thrown a fire-brand into the temple of Peace ! ! ! In defend* 



408 

i»g ourselves some unpleasant truths have necessarily been 
elicited, but which, if properly improved, may tend to advance 
us in the path of pure religion, and to remove many stains 
which the misconduct of professors have cast on the name of 
our holy Redeemer ! Man turns good into evil. — It is a charac- 
teristic of divine Providence, to over-rule evil, and turn it into 
a blessing ! I sincerely hope the present case may furnish an in- 
stance of this kind. " We know," said the Apostle, " that all 
things work together for good to them that love God." Rum. viii. 
28. And such Amicus believes there are amongst all socie- 
ties of Christians. We may differ on doctrinal points, but the 
love of God is the great essential of Christianity, «* He that loveth 
me keepeth my commandments." 

1 will now attempt a reply to « Paul's" three arguments in 
his last Letter, which he thinks are alone sufficient to satisfy 
all Christians [I suppose he means Tritheists] that "there is a 
plurality in the Godhead /" 

Now I think the first text be quotes is sufficient, in connec- 
tion with other passages of Scripture, to convince any but con- 
firmed Tritheists, that the doctrine is untrue. For 1st, «« The 
WORD was GOD," is the express language of the text! — Of 
course, not one-third part of God 2d, "All things were made by 
Him." Now Moses tells us : ** in the beginning God created 
the heavens and the earth." If therefore the creation was not 
the work of one-third part of the Deity — if " God created the 
heavens and the earth," and if <* all things were made by 
Christ," — then " God" and " Christ" must mean the same thing 
■when applied to the Deity I — 3d, «* And the Word was made 
flesh and dwelt among us, &c." The Word was not transub- 
stantiated into flesh ! The Apostle clearly explains this pas- 
sage : «« God was manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 16. 4th, The 
use of personal pronouns when applied to the Deity, do not 
prove personality, No one can rationally apply the expressions 
of Scripture to God, in a carnal sense. Upon " Paul's" theory 
the Deity is distinguished by sex, and is of the masculine 
gender, because the personal pronouns «• him" and *« his" are 
not only personal when applied to men, but indicate the male 
sex ! — My opponent's theory is both shocking and absurd ! ! ! 
5th, The expressions : (s And the Word was with God," taken 
in connection with the following members of the sentence, can 
not imply any distinct personality of the Word. Their evident 
import is : « and the Word was one with God," for « the Word 
was God." 

" Paul's" second argument is founded on the text, John viii. 
iS, « I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father 
that sent me beareth witness of me. ,? The conclusion he draws 



*09 

from this text : " that God and Christ are in some sense two," 
may be fully granted without adding the least force to his Tri- 
nitarian scheme ! The plain Scriptures I have quoted to dis- 
prove a Trinity of persons in the divine nature, show that they 
are in some sense two ! " God was in Christ reconciling the 
world unto himself," 2 Cor. v. 19. In this text it is shown that 
God and Christ are in a very clear sense two I 6i God" refers 
us to the Deity, " Christ" to that body which was born of the 
virgin Mary, which was afterwards crucified, and which Ami- 
cus never was so stupid as to suppose divine. 

The third argument, like most of my opponent's scheme, is 
founded on the use of the pronouns. « If a man love me he will 
keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come 
unto him and make our abode with him." John xiv. 23. Now 
our Lord himself shall answer this argument, and if « Paul" 
should not relish the reply, let him try to refute a position taken 
by Christ himself. " He that seeth me hath seen the Father." 
« I and my Father are one." 

The rest of " Paul's" assertions in his last Letter, which may 
be considered as his expiring struggle on this subject, have all 
bf.en amply refuted. I will not therefore detain my readers 
longer at this time, but simply refer them to my former com- 
munications. 

" If « Paul" should think it expedient to attack us on any 
other point, I shall hold myself in readiness to shew the con- 
sistency of our doctrines with the Holy Scriptures and with 
sound reason. All I can ask of any enemy is to state them 
fairly and in the language of our approved writers. This being 
done I see no reason to fear the consequences, let the assailant 
be who he may. AMICUS. 



Friday, October 11, 1822, 

LETTER XXXVII. 

ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

** M the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and every tongue 
should confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father. 79 
Phil. ii. 10, 11. 

If the Christian public are no more troubled with the railing 
of <* Amicus" than is the writer of these essays, they will 
hardly think his last effusion needs an answer. Vexed that he 

52 



MO 

lias been compelled to expose himself and you, by acknowledging 
your doctrines, he vents his spleen by a personal attack on his 
supposed antagonist, and on the great body of the clergy gene- 
rally. On this subject " Amicus" knows my purpose. He 
may call me i( malevolent," « mercenary," " hireling ;" — ac- 
cuse me of " malice," «< detraction," " bitterness" and « false- 
hood ;" — stigmatize me as a " modern Balaam," a « cruel un- 
relenting persecutor," an " enemy," and use whatever other 
epithets his boasted « charity" may dictate ; I shall speak of 
him (as a man,) as I have always done, with affection and esteem, 
I shall not assume the attribute of omniscience, as he has often 
done, and pretend to search the hearts and arraign the motives 
of my fellow creatures. In this controversy, I have to do only 
with his doctrines. These I have pronounced, and with the 
Bible in my hands, ever must pronounce, dangerous and fatal 
to the soul that receives them. 

He is at perfect liberty to speak of the ministers of the Gos- 
pel as a set of mercenary, selfish and ambitious tyrants ; the 
« elders" of our churches as no better than the friends of Balak 
king of Moab, — the whole body of the «' Calvinists 1 ' as « cruel, 
unrelenting persecutors," — " almost the only professors of 
Christianity that have unsheathed the sword and kindled the 
fire of persecution" — « to whom we ow T e the Inquisition," the 
« fire and faggot," the « rack," the « wheel," and 6i various 
other engines of torture," and thus give another evidence of 
his comprehensive « charity ;" — a striking evidence of his can- 
dor, in thus charging the actions of " grievous wolves," upon 
the poor innocent sheep. 

In answer, if time permitted, and the present state of the 
argument called for it, I should like to contrast the conduct of 
Trinitarians generally with the conduct of their opponents. 

As the iovb or money seems to be, in your eyes, the unpar- 
donable sin, I should like to contrast the avariciousness of Tri- 
nitarian churches in raking, and scraping, and saving thousands 
of dollars, to send ten thousand miles off to the poor perishing 
heathen, — with the liberality of those who never give a cent to 
evangelize the Gentiles, and whose charity, for the most part, 
ends where it begins, in their own society ! 

I should like to contrast the penuriousness of those churches, 
who are willing to give hundreds of dollars to support a preach- 
er, who can explain the Scriptures and edify the congregation, — 
with the generosity of those who had rather starve on the frothy 
declamations of an ignorant female, than contribute a trifle for 
the support of one who might " give himself continually to 
prayer and to the ministry of the word," — whose " profiting 
should appear unto all" — who would not " serve God with that 



411 

which cost him naught" — who would look to the Bible for in* 
struction, rather than to a miraculous internal light. 

I should like to contrast the worldly mindedness of those pious 
youth, who, when they might make a fortune in any other pro- 
fession, enter a ministry, where, in nine cases out of ten, they 
cannot expect such a support as to keep them out of debt ; — . 
with the extreme disinterestedness of those preachers, who are 
at no expense in previous education, none in weekly study and 
preparation, and who receive no other compensation for that 
which « costs them naught," than the privilege of putting their 
hand in the purse, and taking what they choose I ! I 

I should like to contrast the luxury, the wealth, and the ease 
of those Trinitarian Missionaries, who have left all and gone to 
carry the Gospel to our western forests, to Asia and to the islands 
of the sea, — with the self-denial, the poverty, and the hardships 
of those « Reformers," i6 Watchmen" and « Friends," who 
stay at home to condemn them ! ! ! In short, I should like to 
compare the whole system of those w r ho value money only as the 
means of supporting and extending the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 
with that whole system of which money-making said money-keep- 
ing appear to be the beginning and end ! ! ! But all this would 
be at present out of place. We are now appealing to the Bible 
for the truth of certain doctrines, and by the Bible, and not by 
the conduct of professors, these doctrines must stand or fall. 

After nine months importunate teasing of my opponent, and 
when nothing else seemed likely to prevail, a gauntlet of what 
he calls «* indecent" defiance, he has been compelled to throw 
off the mask and make a disclosure, which I venture to say 
(notwithstanding his « fifty writers") was never made before ! 
I have before me no less than eleven different i6 statements of 
the doctrines of the people called Quakers," drawn up by your- 
selves, some ancient, some modern ; not one of which speak 
explicitly, and the majority of them not at all on the vital sub- 
ject of the Trinity ! But lest « Amicus" should accuse me of 
ignorance, I appeal to the public, if they ever saw so explicit 
an avowal of your doctrine on this point ? Suspicions of your 
heresy, it is true, have been almost universal, because of your 
silence on a point of fundamental consequence, and the occa- 
sional inuendos of your preachers and your books. But the pub- 
lic will judge whether they are or not indebted to this controversy 
for the first explicit avowal of your Unitarianism that was ever 
made ! 

You ask, why I do not 6i go into a full detail of the arguments 
for the Trinity ?" I answer : because I have already brought 
more arguments than can be ever answered ; because it would 
prolong this controversy beyond all reasonable bounds, to go 



412 

into a ie full detail ;" because the discussion of other subjects 
will continually bring the Trinity into view ;— but especially 
because it will defend itself. The Christian community, I mean 
such as feel their need of salvation, will never tolerate a doc- 
trine which dethrones their Saviour , and blasts their everlasting 
hopes! I do not think it necessary to go further; and if you 
will not give your views of the atonement, I am as willing to 
stop here as six weeks hence. I am, however, perfectly satis- 
fied. My main object has been gained. Your mask has been 
torn off. You have disrobed yourselves of the very form of 
Christianity. And henceforth you will need no accuser. So 
long as the essays of M Amicus" are acknowledged, no worse 
charges can be brought against you than what they acknow- 
ledge to be just. 

A siege of nine months more, would perhaps draw forth your 
views of the atonement ; but as I have not nine months more 
to spare, I have little hope that you will make a candid state- 
ment of your views. 

In the mean time, I will state a few of the momentous con- 
sequences of denying a plurality of persons in the Deity ; con- 
sequences which, as you admit them, will of course give you 
no concern ; but which the Christian public will not tolerate. 
You have denied the divinity of Christ, except as i( he is the 
Father;" so far as he is distinct from the Father, you i( never 
were so stupid as to consider him divine." 

As you will not state your doctrines to the public, I will state 
them for you. First, then, you make the Son whom God gave 
for the redemption of the world, a mere man. John iii. 16, « God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." &e. 
Gal. iv. 4, <* God sent forth his Son." Now this •« Son," who is the 
"brightness of the Father's glory , and the express image of his per- 
son* who is seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high, of 
whom the Father saith, when he brought him into the world, 
6i Let all the angels of God worship him ;" and to whom, more- 
over, God saith : *,* Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever." 
Heb. i. 1, 10. This « Son" you say, was not divine. For no 
one will be so fi stupid as to believe" that this Son whom the 
Father gave, whom he told all the angels to worship, and to 
whom he said : H Thy throne, God, is forever," was not dis- 
tinct from the Father. But as distinct from the Father, you say 
he was not God, he was a mere man! ! You therefore deny the 
divinity of the « Son of God." 

2. You make him as Mediator, a mere man. For none but 
a (i stupid" person can doubt that a Mediator, so far as he is a 
mediator, must be distinct from the parties between whom he 
mediates. Of course as Mediator he must be distinct from God 



the Father; but as a distinct person, you say he was no more 
than man. Of course, in the only capacity in which he can me- 
diate, you say, he is no more than man ! ! ! This, however, will 
give you little concern. For I have never discovered from your 
books, sermons or prayers 9 that you felt any need of a Mediator at 
all! 

3. You make him as Redeemer a mere man. When I speak 
of Christ as a Redeemer, I speak of him as dying to make atone- 
ment for our sins — as M giving his life a ransom for many." Now 
the most " stupid'' person must perceive that a Redeemer, so 
far as he is a Redeemer, must be distinct from those whom he 
redeems, and from Him to whom he pays the ransom price, 
But as distinct from the Father, to whom he paid this price, 
you say he cannot be divine. Of course only as a man, a finite 
creature, can he act as our Redeemer ! ! Thus the idea which 
the orthodox entertain that « God purchased the church with 
His own blood," Aets xx. 28 — that M God laid down his life for 
us," 1 John iii. 16 — that 6i the Lord of Glory was crucified," 
that the « Lamb" whom all heaven worships, was « slain" for 
us, is all a mistake ! ! Christians, if Christ be not God as distinct 
from the Father, you have no Redemption but what a creature 
could procure ; no atonement but what « mortal flesh" could 
make ! Christians will be shocked at this ; but I have never 
discovered from your books, sermons or prayers that you feel any 
need of a Redeemer ! 

4. In his office of Intercessor you make him a mere man. 
« We have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the 
righteous," who « ever liveth to make intercession for us." 
1 John ii. 1. Heb. vii. 25. 

Now an intercessor must be distinct from them for whom, and 
from Him with whom he intercedes. Jesus Christ, therefore, 
as intercessor, must be a distinct person from the Father with 
whom he pleads. But as distinct from God the Father \our 
doctrine makes him no more than man. Of course, if your doc- 
trine be true, we have no intercessor, no « Advocate with the 
Father'' — but a finite being like ourselves ! ! ! If so, wherein 
are we better off than the Roman Catholics who trust in the in- 
tercession of the " blessed Virgin" and of other saints ? — My 
brethren, to those who feel their need of an intercessor with a 
holy God, yours is an awful doctrine. But I have never disco- 
vered from any of your religious statements that you feel your need 
of any intercessor. Please tell us, if you do? 

5. You deny his divinity as our Judge. For "the Father 
judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son:" 
John v. 22. Now unless the " Son" be a distinct person from 
the "Father," then the Father does really judge mankind* 



Which is false, for it is contradicted by the text. The Sou, 
therefore, is a distinct person from the Father. But, as such, 
you say he is not divine. Therefore the universe is to be judg- 
ed by a finite and of course imperfect man ! 

6. You make him as an object of our woiiship a mere man. 
Stephen in his dying moments looked up and said : " Behold 1 
see the heavens opened and the Son or Man standing on the 
right hand of God. And they stoned Stephen," calling upon God, 
and saying : " Lord Jesus receive my spirit," Acts vii. 56, 60. 
This person whom Stephen worshipped, and whom he regarded 
as distinct from God the Father, you say it is " stupid to believe 
divine." 

In early times, Christians were described as those who "call 
on the name of the Lord Jesus," or make him the object of their 
worship. « Grace, mercy and peace," are sought not only from 
« God the Father," but from "the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son 
of the Father." And yet you say, that as distinct from the 
Father, he is simply si man! 

Moreover the angels of God worship him. Heh. i. 5; and the 
whole heavenly host consisting of " ten thousand times ten 
thousand, and thousands of thousands," are represented as 
" falling down before the Lamb." " And they sung a new song, 
saying : Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain, and hast redeem- 
ed us to God bv thy buood." " And every creature which is in 
heaven, and which is in earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, beard I saying : Blessing, and honour and glory 
and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb for ever and ever," Rev, v. 6, 12. and vii. 9, 17. If here 
be not an act of worship addressed to the Lamb as distinct from 
God the Father, then there is no meaning in words. The whole 
Christian world worship Christ as distinct from God the Father, 
and in this they follow Scripture and glorify the Father. "At the 
name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess 
that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," Phil. ii. 10, 
11. But according to your doctrine we worship a man, and 
give God's glory to another. But we prefer the teaching of 
Christ and his Apostles to that of either Barclay or "Amicus." 

These are a few of the arguments which might be brought 
to show that though you admit the "divinity of Christ," in ge- 
neral, you deny it in every particular. You admit that " as the 
Father" he is divine ; but as Mediator and Intercessor with 
the Father, in short in all the offices in which he acts as Saviour, 
he is a mere man ! If opportunity offer, I will hereafter show 
that by rejecting the Trinity, you annul not only the divinity 
of Christ, but also of the Holy Ghost. 

(And now fellow Christians* you see the unspeakable dan- 



M5 

gerous tendency of Quakerism. It would dethrone your Suv - 
our ! It would reduce the mediation, redemption, atonement, 
intercession, government and salvation on which you trust, to 
the poor work of a mere man ! 1 ! And will you longer acknow- 
ledge such doctrines as Christian doctrines ? Are these who 
« deny the Lord that bought them,'* to be owned as Christian 
brethren ? I trust not. Pity them, love them, pray for them, 
but never acknowledge them as members of the church of 
Christ, until they abjure their errors, and ** honour the 
Son as they honour the Father.'* PAUL. 



Sixth-day, 10th mo. 18, 1822. ^ 

LETTER XXXVIII. 

" Put forth thine hand now and touch his bone and his skin and he 
will curse thee to thy face. 37 Job ii. 5. 

In my last essay I stated a number of facts, deeply interest- 
ing to the Christian public : facts, which every friend to the 
extension of the Gospel, ought ever to keep in view, as they 
have a most important bearing on the future prosperity of the 
church. Christianity never can be essentially injured by her 
avowed enemies — her deepest wounds have always been inflict- 
ed in the house of her professed friends ! I do not lightly make 
the assertion, when I say, that A HIRELING MERCENARY 
CLERGY, HAVE DONE MORE TO BRING DARK- 
NESS AND DISGRACE UPON THE CHURCH, THAN 
ALL OTHER CAUSES PUT TOGETHER! If this be 
true, and I think it will not be denied, and if it should be, it 
can be easily proved ; I say if this be true, does it not loudly 
call on all societies of Christians, closely to examine the ground 
of the present system, whether the practice of hiring men to 
preach, has either precept or example, under the Gospel, to 
sustain it — whether the commands of Christ, the practice of 
the Apostles, the warning voice of history, and the testimony 
of experience, do not all concur to stamp the practice as anti- 
christian and dangerous. The covetousness of the clergy has been 
proverbial for a thousand years, — their ambition is without a 
parallel — and their cruelty has never been surpassed ! ! ! 

In corroboration of this view, and to rebut the arguments of 
my opponent, I have, at different times, laid before the public 
a number of well authentical facts — facts, which my opponent 
has never dared to controvert. To do this Amicus apprehend- 
ed was his duty, not only as defendant in the present contro- 



416 

versy, but as a friend and advocate of that Gospel which came 
by Jesus Christ. These facts, it is true, have militated against 
the interests of my opponent : and, as might have been expected, 
have produced an angry reply — he has descended, as he had 
frequently done before, to the use of low and scurrilous lan- 
guage, very unbecoming the dignified character of a Gospel 
minister. An interference with his pecuniary interest I have 
no doubt was very hard to bear ; it was like " touching the 
bone and the skin," — but, as an example to the flock, he ought 
to have borne it with patience, as Job did ; and if he could not 
restrain his wrath, it ought to have been directed against 
the facts adduced, and not against Amicus, nor the peaceable 
society he advocates ! 

"Paul" feigns a belief, that Amicus has been "vexed by 
being compelled to expose himself and his friends in the ac- 
knowledgement of their doctrines." — If our readers have per- 
ceived any symptoms of vexation in the productions of Amicus, 
he has been very unhappy in the choice of language to express 
his feelings. So far from feeling any regret at the exposition 
of our faith, it has given him much pleasure to hold it up more 
publicly to view 7 — and this pleasure has been heightened by 
the consideration, that thousands who have been disgusted 
with the idolatrous scheme of saint Athanasius, will perceive 
that the Society of Friends have adopted sentiments on the na- 
ture of the Deity, which (while they condemn the idea of 
of THREE GODS) are clearly and firmly supported by the 
plainest Scripture passages, and the most conclusive reasoning. 

But with whatever temper Amicus may have sustained his 
cause, " Paul's" last Letter breathes a spirit which cannot be 
misunderstood ! His first paragraph evinces, that he has been 
wounded to the « bone ;" and from his w hole essay it is evident, 
that he has been touched on " the skin." When his irritation 
subsides, and calmness succeeds to the hurry of passion, may 
we not hope that he will feel some reject over the offspring of 
his anger, and experience repentance for his indulgence of his 
weakness ! Anger blinds the judgment; it makes a writer for- 
get that while he is the sport of his passions, his readers are 
cool, and his best friends are his most mortified spectators. 

My opponent seems offended that I compared him with BA- 
LAAM. But in justice to Amicus it ought to be remembered, 
that at the same time, I marked the points of resemblance be- 
tween " Paul" and his great prototype. Now in order to obli^ 
terate any impression, which such a comparison was calculat- 
ed to produce, he ought to have shewn, that the comparison 
was unjust. But this he has carefully avoided, and thus he has 
suffered the impression to remain ! ! ! 



417 

He accuses me of assuming the attribute of omniscience, be* 
cause, in conformity with the rule laid down by our Lord him- 
self, 1 judged of the tree by its fruits! "By their fruits ye 
shall know them, said our Lord, — every good tree bringeth 
forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit — a 
good tree cannot bring forth exit fruiU" Matt. vii. 16, 17, IS. 
A man's faith is much better tested by this rule, than by the 
dogmas and decisions of fallible men. « Paul" seems to think 
otherwise — but this need not surprise us! It has ever been 
the interest of mercenary professors, to obscure the plainest 
Gospel truths; and instead of testing the faith of individuals, 
or societies, in this way, to try it by some CREED of human 
invention — no matter how absurd ! ! ! 

" Paul" tells me that Amicus is at perfect liberty to speak of 
the ministers of the Gospel, as a set of mercenary, selfish, am- 
bitious tyrants! ! In this however he is much mistaken — I do 
not feel the least liberty to say a word against <* the ministers of 
the Gospel." Let them be of what society they may, I Jove 
and venerate them with all my heart ! — Bound to the sacred 
cause of Christianity by the double tie of love and duty, they 
*« scorn to make divinity a trade'' — a step-ladder to raise them 
to wealth and distinction ! — Like the Apostles of Christ, and 
in cheerful obedience to his command, they " freely give" what 
they have «* freely received." — They ask no other compensa- 
tion than " a peaceful conscience" — no other privilege than to 
stand on the dignified ground of disinterested ambassadors for 
Christ ! See Acts xx. 33, 34. 1 Cor. ix. 18. But unhappily 
for this sacred cause, through the influence of false ministers^ 
who have crept into the fold, not through Christ the door — but 
through the gate of theological seminaries ! — not in the power 
of the kingdom of God, but in the strength of academical de- 
grees, and of that wisdom which is foolishness with God. — I 
say, through the influence of such ministers, a dark apostacy 
has been effected in the church. They have obscured the 
plain truths of the Gospel ! The Christian plan of redemption, 
simple as the light of day, has been darkened by their heathen- 
ish jargon, and " methaphysical nonsense !" The knowledge of 
God and eternal life, through the operation of his own blessed 
Spirit, which was promised to " the least" as well as « to the 
greatest," Heb. viii. 11, they have wrapped up in mystery, 
and enveloped in the fogs of Pagan philosophy ! — and hence, 
with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness, according to 
apostolic prediction, " through feigned words, they have made 
merchandize of the people." — Against such, in whatever socie- 
ty they may he found, I feel " at perfect liberty to speak" and 



us 

to paint them in their true character as « grievous wolves, who 
have entered in, not sparing the flock." Acts xx. 29. 

In a former address, " Paul" claimed for the Trinitarians, 
the sole merit of spreading the Gospel ! ! ! This unwarranted 
assumption was met by an exposition of some very prominent 
features in their character. They were described as being 
remarkable for their unrelenting cruelty, and as « almost the on- 
ly professors of Christianity who had unsheathed the sword 
and lighted the fires of persecution." My opponent does not 
deny these facts ! — They must therefore lie with deadly 
weight against the Trinitarian character ! — « Ye shall know 
them by their fruits ! !" But so far is 6i Paul's" assump- 
tion from true, that I assert without any fear of contradiction, 
they have done more to obstruct the spreading of the Gospel, than 
any people that have ever lived ! — Yet Paul thinks it uncandid to 
«* charge the actions of grievous wolves upon the poor innocent 
sheep ! ! !" — How a statement of facts can mark a want of can- 
dor, he has not explained ! From such sheep may we all in 
mercy be delivered ! ! ! 

My opponent expresses an anxious desire to make contrasts! 
but he had better be sparing on that head, for if Amicus should 
be induced to take the same course, instead of contrasting one 
falsehood with another, he would contrast facts with facts, and 
open a scene to those unacquainted with Ecclesiastical history, 
that might do more to cripple the cause of Trinitarianism, than 
the more lucid exposition of Athanasian absurdities. He might 
contrast a contentious, lordly, mercenary clergy, with the meek, 
humble, disinterested ministers of Christ. He might contrast 
the services, the travels, and sufferings of the Apostle Paul, 
working his way from country to country on the produce of his 
own labour, with the shameless beggary of those who would 
take the last mite from the hand of suffering poverty. He 
might contrast the untitled and lowly Peter and John, with the 
Reverends of our day, who justly claim alineal descent from the 
church of Rome ! ! ! But these contrasts would be disgusting, 
and only serve to show, that the reformation from popery, with 
all its boasted advantages, had been little more than nominal, 
and that the professing churches, whether Calvinistical or pre- 
latical, still need a greater reformation than has ever been ef- 
fected ! 

Whether « the love of money" be an <? unpardonable sin," I 
will not undertake to determine — but we have divine authority, 
and ample testimony from experience, to show that « it is the 
root of all evil!" Where is the enlightened and disinterested 
Christian, who does not lament to see this foul leprosy, winding 
itself into almost every department of society — to see the scaly 



419 

plague, shining most conspicuously in the very face of the pro- 
fessed church of Christ ! ! ! — rising into her eyes, blinding her 
to the perception of her state, so that when she ought to hang 
her head for shame, she has the indelicacy to boast of her 
sores ! ! ! 

By a great variety of contrasts, we might show the striking 
contrariety of character, between the primitive churches, and 
those, which « Paul" tells us, " are raking, and scraping and 
saving thousands of dollars to send ten thousand miles off to the 
poor perishing heathen." But the time would fail us ; we will 
therefore for the present leave the subject, for the calm reflec- 
tion of those who prefer the enjoyment of religious liberty, to 
the state of the oppressed animal, that transported Balaam from 
Pethor, " the land of the children of his people," to '* the high 
places of Baal," that he might « curse Israel !" 

But my opponent informs us, that these *< thousands of dol- 
lars," thus " raked, and scraped, and saved," are sent to the 
poor perishing heathen !— -This is truly something wonderful ! 
What! the missionaries send DOLLARS TO THE HEA- 
THEN! — As <« Paul" has been a little subject to the infirmi- 
ty of hasty writers — « lapsus linguce" I would thank him in his 
next, to tell us whether he did not mean, that these thousands 
of dollars w r ere « raked and scraped" to send to the poor pe- 
rishing missionaries ! 1 1 — For I really suspect that the poor 
heathen would find it as difficult to account for the disburse- 
ment of these dollars, (except at Serampore,) as the public 
would be surprised to know their real destination ! — I have al- 
ways supposed, that a large portion of them were consumed by 
the very men who strained every nerve to collect them. One 
thing we know, (if the missionaries are to be believed,) that the 
poor heathen have already been laid under contribution for 
funds to aid in their subjugation to the Ecclesiastical yoke ! 
The South Sea islanders have already shipped their " pigs, 
and their oil, and their arrow root" for the benefit of the mis- 
sionaries; and the natives of our own country have already as- 
signed large revenues for the same purposes. Marshman, 
Ward and company, have shown the world how to make a for- 
tune in Hindostan. — And TIME, who is a great tell-tale, will 
one day develope such facts to the public, as will give them 
little comfort while they hold the empty purse ! ! ! 

6i Paul," after much circumlocution, and an attempt to make 
his readers believe that the society of Friends have been silent 
on the subject of the divine nature, says : « The public will 
judge whether they are not indebted to this controversy for the 
first explicit avowal of (what he pleased to term) our UnitarU 
anism, that was ever made." Now, if my readers will consult 



420 

William Penn's ik Sandy Foundation Shaken," and his " Inno- 
cence with her open face," hoth published ONE HUNDRED 
AND FIFTY FOUR YEARS AGO, they will see that he has 
made an avowal of our Unitarianism as explicit as any Amicus 
has ever made— that he has, with his usual force and clearness, 
demonstrated the absurdity and idolatry of the Athanasian 
scheme; and consequently, " Paul" must be either an ignorant 
pretender, or wilful perverter of the truth. 

For a nine month's siege on the doctrine of " atonement," 
" Paul" cannot << spare the time ! ! f 9 But there are other rea- 
sons for his dislike of sieges, in the first place, he is apt to run 
short oj the means to sustain them. In the next, he has been 
uniformly driven from his intrenchments ; and in the present 
case, on his re-appearance from his mystical refuge, it appears 
he has taken the precaution to provide himself an asylum un- 
der the wing of the editor, only six steps distant from his re- 
doubt ! ! !* In this instance " Paul" is fairly entitled to the 
praise of a discreet antagonist. " The prudent man foreseeth 
the evil and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are pun- 
ished " Prov. xxii. 3. 

I will now notice some of the remarks of my opponent, intend- 
ed, not to prove the truth of his own absurd doctrine, but to 
blind the eyes of his readers to its deformity. 

First, he says : « the Christian community, such as feel their 
need of salvation, will never tolerate a doctrine which dethrones 
their Saviour and blasts their everlasting hopes !" — Now with 
all due respect to the views of my opponent, I think it can be 

OCj* The folio-wing Note should have been inserted immediately after '* Amicus'" 
XXXVIIth Letter, page 409. 

* A -word to Paul and Amicus. — There appears to be a division among our 
subscribers in regard to your controversy. A number of our readers would 
prefer that your essays should give place to something of a less controversial 
nature ; while others, and perhaps an equally large number, anxious to learn 
the sentiments of the Friends, are desirous for your continuance. For our- 
selves, we have been generally pleased with the controversy from the first, ex- 
cept its length and asperities ; and doubt not its having done good. But too 
much of any thing, however good, is good for nothing. And as you have now oc- 
cupied the Repository, and a large portion of it too, for nearly a year and a half; 
as " Paul" professes to have gained the main point at which he originally aim- 
ed, a statement of the sentiments of Friends on the subject of the Trinity ,• and 
as " Amicus," by his essay this week, seems to be satisfied with the discussion 
of that point ; and as the parties are beginning to manifest increasing warmth 
and personality ; the editor would suggest the propriety of drawing to a close 
as speedily as possible. 

Therefore, we conclude to stop the controversy, so far as our paper is con- 
cerned, after each shall have appeared in our columns six times more. Six 
more opportunities will be given to each of the combatants to propose and de- 
fend their sentiments after which we must beg to be excused. -—Editor Chris* 
Han Repository. Saturday, Oct. 5, 1822. 



421 

made clearly to appear, that upon this hypothesis those who feel 
the need of a Saviour must reject the Trinitarian scheme, 
" Paul's" Saviour is mortal ! 

In his pretended exposition of our doctrine « Paul" first tells 
us, that we « make the Son, whom God gave for the redemption 
of the world, a mere man." It happens however that his per- 
version is no part of our doctrine, i have never yet been quite 
so « stupid" as to believe, much less to assert that a mere man 
could effect the redemption of the world. Nothing short of 
Infinite power could possibly redeem the soul from sin, and 
bring us into a conformity to the divine nature ! But I have 
before asserted, and 1 think clearly illustrated, what indeed 
every man who reads his Bible must see, that the terms 
« Christ" and " Son of God," are sometimes applied to the hu- 
man nature, which was the medium of that glorious manifesta- 
tion of God in the flesh. " God sent forth his Son made of a 
woman," Gal. iv. 4. « The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, 
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore, 
also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called 
the Son of God " Luke i. 35. Sometimes they are applied to 
the divine nature, which tf dwelt" in it ; to « God manifest in 
the flesh, "-r-who being the brightness of his glory, and the ex- 
press image of his person," or, properly <* the express charac- 
ter of his substance." — ** To the Son he saith, thy throne O God 
is forever and ever," Heb. i. 3, 8. — And sometimes both senses 
are included in the same terms : " God has in these last days 
spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also, he made the worlds,*' verse 2. By blend- 
ing together things that differ, and ideas which should be kept 
distinct, my opponent not only confuses the subject, and throws 
difficulties in the way of understanding what is sufficiently 
plain, but he runs himself into palpable blasphemy, as I shall 
presently demonstrate. So far is « Paul's" conclusion from 
being correct, that we « deny the divinity of Christ," that I 
know of no people on earth who more fully acknowledge it, than 
we do. While my opponent makes the Saviour a mortal Divi- 
nity ! — a dying God ! — we make him " the only wise God our 
Saviour." Jude. «* The eternal Spirit manifest in the flesh," 
for our reconciliation and redemption ! 

" Paul" tells us that when he speaks of" Christ as a Redeemer, 
he speaks of him as dying to make atonement for our sins, as 
giving his life a ransom for many :" It follows therefore, that 
the redemption which is to save him in the awful day, consists 
altogether in what was done by another in his stead, without 
any regard to his being redeemed from the power of corruption ! 
That he is to be saved in his sins, not from his sins / /—Now 



*%2 

when we speak of redemption by Christ, we speak or « an effec- 
tual redemption, a thorough change ; not the imputation of 
righteousness without works, but a real substantial righteous- 
ness in the heart and life, which may operate upon, and regu- 
late the mind and will, and lead us to a conformity to his divine 
nature : Not a righteousness imputed to us from what Christ 
did and suffered, without us, but a righteousness raised by him 
within us, through a surrender of ourselves to his government, 
and yielding entire submission to his heart cleansing refining 
power." See FothergilPs Sermons, Phila. edit. 1800, p. 65. 

But according to " Paul," and what he tells us is " the idea 
which the orthodox entertain," Jehovah the Redeemer literally 
" laid down his life for us." GOD was crucified and slain! I ! 
So then the infinite GOD suffered and died, — and that too by the 
agency of those creatures he had made, and who at the same 
moment were sustained by him in life and existence ! ! ! — The 
idea is shocking ! To admit it, in defiance of reason and common 
sense, must I think require no little « stupidity.'* It is impossi- 
ble the Divine nature could suffer or die ! — Yet it must have been 
so if one person in the Godhead was crucified and killed to ap- 
pease the wrath of another person in the Godhead, and to enable 
him to be " merciful" to mankind, and (( pardon" them ! ! ! If 
there be three divine persons in the Godhead, and one of those 
persons died, then the time has been when the Godhead consist- 
ed of two living members, and one dead member I — a time when 
the Deity suffered an eclipse, more awful than the destruction 
of one third of all the suns in the firmament of heaven ! ! ! But 
this is not the last in the long string of orthodox absurdity, accord- 
ing to which the blood that was shed on Calvary, was the blood 
of God ! and the flesh there crucified was the flesh of God ///— « 
If this is not blasphemy, I am at a loss to conceive the meaning 
of the term ! ! !— 

In order, however, to sustain his disgusting scheme, he 
quotes 1 John iii. 16, «« Hereby perceive we the love of God, 
because he laid down his life for us, we ought to lay down our 
lives for the brethren." It is evident from his use of this text, 
that he would make his readers believe, that the Apostle meant 
to convey the idea that " God laid down his life for us." Now 
the original conveys no such idea ! — the pronoun " he" in the 
text does not relate to the immediate antecedent, in our trans- 
lation ! Because, in the first place, the words 6i of God" in this 
verse, have been supplied by the translators, and in the best 
editions are always printed in Italics. But even if these words 
should not be called in question, yet the Greek word (Ekeinos) 
translated " he," always relates to a remote antecedent, being 
equivalent to the expression « that there" or the French « ce* 



&23 

hula." Had the pronoun « he" been intended to relate to (toil 
Theou) of God (outos) would have been used, which is the same 
as (t this here" — or the French «« celui ei" — (Ekeinos) therefore 
must relate to the " Son of God," mentioned verse 8th — and 
perhaps the best translation of the passage would be : «• Hereby 
perceive we the love of God, because his Son laid down his life 
for us." See A. Clarke, in loco. Macknight, Newcome. Park- 
hurst on the word « Ekeinos," &c. 

He also quotes Acts xx. 28, to support his shocking theory, 
that " God died" Here however he also fails — the best trans- 
lations render it from the most ancient manuscripts : " Take 
heed, &c. to feed the church (tou kuriou) of the Lord, which he 
hath purchased with his own blood," for which 1 refer the rea- 
der to the text of GRIESBACH, from whose collection and 
that of WESTEIN, it appears that few manuscripts, and none 
of them very ancient, have the word (Theou) of God in the text. 

From what has been said and from the former essays of Ami- 
cus it clearly appears, that when " Paui," accuses us of deny- 
ing the divinity of Christ as our Saviour, our Redeemer, our 
Reconciler, our Judge, or as the object of our worship, he is 
guilty of a gross calumny, and that in the face of the most expli- 
cit declarations to the contrary, as well as from the unequivo- 
cal meaning of very numerous Scripture passages which I 
adduced to illustrate our views. 

And now fellow Christians you see the shocking and irrational 
consequences of Trinitarianism — you see it is not of God, but 
the vile production of that wisdom which is from beneath I — It 
makes the ever blessed Jehovah a finite mortal. Jt makes the 
Deity an unsubstantial Being — it makes the Saviour at best but 
one third part of a monstrous Divinity. — It attributes to the Cre- 
ator the worst passions of human nature. — Are those who hold 
such doctrines Christians ? are they even rational men ? Alas ! 
poor human nature ! What miserable work does it make when 
it presumes to sit in judgment on divine things ? We may pity 
their errors — we may love their persons— we may pray that 
the scales may be removed from their eyes, but if we embrace 
their opinions, we must " grope with them in the noon day as 
in the night"— and when the blind lead the blind they fall into 
the ditch together. AMICUS, 



42* 

"Friday, OctoBer 25, 18^2. 

LETTER XXXVIII. 

ON THE DIVINITY AND ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

« Hay down my life for the sheep. «7V*o man taketh it from me 9 
but I lay it down of myself I have power to lay it down 9 and I 
have power to take it again." John x. 15, 18. 

I have no time to trifle. And therefore cannot notice the 
greater part of your last essay. And as to the remaining part, it 
is so perfectly in character, that is, so perfectly equivocal, that 
if we attempt to seize it, like a slippery eel, it will elude our 
grasp. In those passages, however, where he ridicules the 
idea of our being M saved in the awful day by what another has 
done for us in our stead;" when he says, 6i the redemption 
which we hold, consists in a thorough change, not a righteous- 
ness imputed to us from what Christ did and suffered without 
us, but a righteousness raised by him within its,*" — in those pas- 
sages where he rejects, with so much affected horror, the idea 
of a divine person dying for us, and where he pronounces Scrip- 
ture expressions « blasphemy" — he has given such an exhibi- 
tion of your sentiments, as tempted me to trouble you with the 
following texts : 

First, consider the text which stands at the head of this 
essay, contained in John x. 15, 18 : *< I lay down my life for the 
sheep. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. 
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." 

Now, note 1. This speaker must have been a divine person. 
For none but God has 6i power to lay down life and take it 
again." 

Note 2. Yet this divine person is the same who actually laid 
down his life for his people. « 1 lay down my life for the sheep." 
Therefore 3. It is not improper to say, « God laid down his life 
for us." I hope, therefore, that hereafter your nerves will be 
less shocked by a Scripture phrase ! ! I would here remark, 
however, that though only ** mortal flesh" (in one sense) can 
die, yet, in common language, we predicate the death of that 
whole person to whom the " mortal flesh" belonged. Thus, 
when we say John died, we do not mean that his soul died, but 
only that all that was mortal of John suffered death. When we 
say Paul was beheaded, Isaiah was sawn asunder, we do not 
mean that their souls were beheaded or sawn asunder ! but that 
part of them which was capable of these things was thus served. 
So, when the Bible tells us that " God," (or as Middleton tells 
ns from the best MSS. it ought to be rendered " the Lord God) 



425 

purchased the church with his own blood." Acts xx 28 ; we do 
not understand that the divine nature suffered, for of suffering 
it is incapable; but we understand that that "mortal flesh" 
which was crucified, and that s * blood 5 ' which was shed upon 
Mount Calvary, belonged not to a mere man, but to the mighty 
God. 

Secondly ; Look at Phil. ii. 5 : " Let this mind be in you which 
was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God; yet made himself of no 
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was 
made in the likeness of man. And being found in fashion as a 
man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even 
the death of the cross." Note here, as before, 1, That the per- 
son spoken of was divine. For he was ""in the form of God, 
and thought it no robbery to be equal with God," and of course 
was God. 

Yet, 2. This same divine person is here said to have assum- 
ed humanity, and to have submitted to death. " He humbled 
himself, and became obedient even unto death." And yet you 
say, it is unscriptural to say God laid down his life for us ! ! 

While, however, I contend for this phrase, I do it not because 
these terms are of themselves of much importance, but because, 
along with the terms, you reject the doctrine of divine atone- 
ment ! 

Thirdly ; Attentively weigh 2 Cor. viii. 9 : " Ye know the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet 
for our sakes he became poor, that we, through his poverty, might 
be rifeh." Here remember, 1. Jesus Christ was never rich 
while on earth; his «» riches," therefore, must allude to his 
previous existence, in other words, to his eternal divinity, « He 
was rich." But, 2. This same person afterwards became poor. 
« He who was rich, for our sakes became poor." Therefore, 3. 
It is proper to speak of the poverty, suffering, death, and other 
parts of the « humiliation," as endured by a divine person, — 
by one who, before his incarnation, was infinitely rich. It is 
proper to say, that God made himself of no reputation — be- 
came poor — suffered — died, and was buried, Scripture au- 
thorises all these phrases, because the Redeemer was God. 

Fourthly ; If you still doubt, consider Rev. i. 5 : "Unto him 
that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and 
has made us kings and priests unto God, even his Father, to 
him be glory and dominion, both now and forever!" Here ob- 
serve, 1. The person here alluded to must be divine; for he is 
here publicly worshipped, and glory and dominion ascribed to 
him forever and ever. Besides, he is said to « wash from sin," 

hich is the work of God alone. ^« Unto him that washed us." 
54 



426 

Yet 2. This same divine person once died. For it is said 
that he hath *< loved us and washed us from our sins in his own 
blood" or by his death. The sensibility, therefore, which 
shrinks and cries «« blasphemy," when the scenes of Calvary 
are described as the sufferings of a divine person — is rather of 
a morbid kind ! 

Again ; in the same chapter, John heard a voice behind him, 
saying : « I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last ;" and 
turning he saw "one like unto the Son of Man," who laid his 
hand upon him and said : " Fear not, I am the first and the last ; 
I am he that liveth and was dead." And in the second chapter 
8th verse, the same person says : « These things saith the first 
and the last, he which was dead and is alive," Rev. i. 17, 
and ii. 8. 

Observe 1. The person speaking was God, for he was Alpha 
and Omega, the first and the last. Yet 2. This same divine 
person says he was once dead. *' I am he which was dead and 
is alive." AH the shockingness and " profaneness," therefore 
which you ascribe to us in regarding the atonement upon Cal- 
vary as divine, you may ascribe to our Lord himself! ! 

Again; if you are not yet satisfied that a divine person was 
slain for us, read Rev. v. 12 : "And 1 heard the voice of many 
angels around about the throne, and the living creatures, and 
the elders, and the numbers of them was ten thousand times 
ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud 
voice : « Worthv is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power 
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory 
and blessing," — (see the whole chapter, and also chapter se- 
venth.) 

Note 1. This " Lamb" must have been a divine person, or 
he would not have been thus worshipped. But 2. Though di- 
vine he is said to have been slain. « Worthy is the Lamb that 
was slain.'' There is therefore no impropriety in saying that 
He who died on Calvary was God. That which was suspended 
on the cross was not simply a piece of « mortal flesh," but the 
Lamb of God who there took away the guilt of the world. 

But you still think it a horrible thing that the Creator should 
suffer himself to be crucified and abused by " the agency of 
those creatures he had made, and who at the same time were 
sustained by him in life and existence ! ! !" 

That is, such things are « too high for you," they are above 
your " reason," and beyond your " comprehension, ," Very true, 
and if an Unitarian had contrived the way of salvation, we 
should have had no such mysteries — in fact should have had no 
Saviour, — and no God but what we could comprehend / 1 But God 
never intended the universe to be contained in a nut-shell ! !— ° 



427 

nor that man should know more than Himself. He has never 
asked our counsel, or inquired whether his salvation would suit 
our speculations; but he lias told us facts and we must believe 
them or perish. And one of these facts is that which gives 
you such a shuddering, to wit: that the giver of life should 
suffer his creatures to put Him to death J But you doubt! 
therefore 

Again ; read Acts ii. 14, 15, and hear what the Spirit saith 
to the Jews: «• But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, 
and killed the Prince or Life ! !" 

The title " Prince of Life," or Author or Life, as the meaning 
is, is one of the highest titles given to our Lord in Scripture; 
in fact, must be a title inapplicable to any creature, and as pe- 
culiar to God as the name " Jehovah." 

The same idea is conveyed in 1 Cor. ii. 8. « Which none of 
the princes of this world knew ; for had they known it, they 
would not have crucified the Lord of Glory !" The 6i Lord of 
Glory," and the « God of Glory," are equivalent terms or titles, 
and equally denote the divinity of Him to whom they are ap- 
plied. But this Lord of Glory, was « crucified /■" i. e. nailed to 
across, pierced, wounded, tortured and killed ! — Grant, it is 
*< shocking" and awful ! — but it is fact ! 

Yes ; it is a fact! a divinely attested fact ! and one which 
more than all things else in the universe, speaks the infinite 
evil of sin, — the inflexible justice of God, — the holiness of the 
Law, — the certainty of salvation to all who believe. — and the 
certainty of damnation to all who disbelieve ! The cross of 
Christ, or the sufferings of the Lord of glory in our room and 
stead, are the main theme and glory of the whole ISew Testa- 
ment. Not only Paul, but all the Apostles abhorred the thought 
of" glorying, save in the cross of Christ, by the which they were 
crucified to the world, and the world unto them !" The suffer- 
ings of the Lamb, as we have seen, are the theme and song of 
all the heavenly host, and " unto Him, that loved us and wash- 
ed us from our sins in his own blood," will be the song of the 
redeemed forever ! 

In this song, however, you can never join ! you are too proud 
to be « saved by what another has accomplished in your stead ;" 
you are unwilling to be justified by the righteousness which 
Christ wrought without you;— you think it "unmerciful" in 
God to require a satisfaction of his creatures ; and with ridi- 
cule and contempt, reject the doctrine of one person in the 
Godhead dying to make atonement to another! ! ! All things 
relating to the atonement are in your view " orthodox absur- 
dities ! !" But I must appeal to a candid public, if the pas- 
sages 1 have quoted do not prove 



i28 

1. The doctrine of atonement, — or salvation by the death of a 
divine substitute, • They attribute our life to his death ; "i lay 
down my life for (or instead of) the sheep." They attribute 
our cleansing to his Mood; (i who hath washed us from our sins 
in his own blood ." Our riches to his poverty; "for our sakes 
he became poor that we might be rich." — Our redemption to his 
blood : «« Feed the flock of God which he had piirchased with 
his own blood." In short, they teach what ail Scripture teaches, 
that " He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities. All we like sheep had gone astray and the 
Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. liii. 5, 6. « So 
Christ was once offered to bear the sin of many ;— and by his 
one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctifi- 
ed." Heb. ix. 28, and x. 14. 

2. They prove that the atonement was made by a divine per- 
son. This is proved by the titles, attributes, works and wor- 
ship attributed in these texts to him who died. He was "in 
the form of God" and ** equal with God," is termed the «« Alpha 
and Omega, the first and the last ;" he had < 6 power to lay 
down his life and to take it again," and is worshipped by all 
the host of heaven, who continually ascribe to him " honour 
and glory and dominion forever and ever." 

3. They prove a distinction of persons in the Godhead, Christ 
is said to be " equal with God," which implies a comparison, 
and of course a numerical and personal distinction. He is said 
to have " made us kings and priests unto God even his Father," 
which is another proof of distinction. And in the context, glory 
is ascribed not only « to Him who sitteth on the throne," (the 
Father,) but * unto the Lamb forever." 

These passages, as well as a multitute of others, to every 
humble childlike reader of the Bible, clearly indicate a dis- 
tinction of persons in the Godhead. 

Thus, my dear friends, instead of answering personal insults, 
returning railing for railing, wasting time and paper, and 
abusing the public patience by evading the points in controver- 
sy, I have brought before you fundamental truths, — doctrines 
as valuable as your souls, — without believing which, I am as 
sure as of any truth in revelation, no man can be saved. 

The religion which you are taught by your preachers, in 
your printed sermons, and other books, (I speak in the fear of 
God) contains no Saviour I Fothergill, one of your most popular 
preachers, from whom "Amicus," in his last, made a long quota- 
tion, in his dying exercises, makes no mention of a Saviour's 
righteousness ! — in four out of five long Prayers affixed to his 
Sermons, makes not a petition in the name of Emmanuel ! — and 
has but one sentence, and that of a very general kind, of cor- 



429 

fession for sin ! ! A fair specimen of your conversation with 
dying sinners, was mentioned to me a few days ago by a near 
relative of one of the witnesses. A clergyman formerly settled 
in Dover in this state, went one day to visit a criminal confined 
in that place, who was condemned shortly to die. Some how 
or other, a « public friend" happened there at the same time. 
The clergyman talked with the culprit, set before him his crime 
in all its blackness, and warned and exhorted him to immediate 
repentence of this and all his other sins. He told him of the 
Saviour's object in visiting our world to make atonement for 
human sins, so that now whosoever would believe on Him might 
be saved. After talking some time, supposing the "friend" 
would wish to say something, he drew back, and waited in si- 
lence. Presently, this follower of internal light, this blind 
leader of the blind, addressed him in substance thus : " Friend, 
thou hast committed a great crime, for which thou deservest to 
be punished. Now what I advise thee to do, is cheerfully to sub- 
mil thyself to thy fate 9 as the only satisfaction thou canst make to 
justice ! ! I — Such preaching, at such a season, to such a person, 
shocked even the hardened Gaol keeper, who as they went out, 
said to the clergyman :" "Did you ever hear such awful language 
to a dying sinner ?" Such a religion might have suited an Aure- 
lius or a Socrates, but will never suit a Christian. PAUL. 



Sixth-day, 11th mo. 1, 1822. 

LETTER XXXIX. 

It is an irrefragable evidence of the falsity of the Athana- 
sian Creed, that the more it is investigated the more its absur- 
dity, its shocking and blasphemous consequences appear. In 
my last by fair induction from his own positions, I demonstrat- 
ed the revolting fact, that my opponent holds the doctrine that 
THE DIVINE NATURE WAS MORTAL— -that GOD 
the GREAT FIRST CAUSE, the CREATOR and SUP- 
PORTER OF THE UNIVERSE was subject to death, and 
that he was actually slain on Mount Calvary i / ! 

The gross and irrational nature of this doctrine is calculated 
to produce such universal disgust, that I expected my oppo- 
nent would in his reply make a vigorous attempt to overthrow 
my conclusions. In this however I have been disappointed ! 
His last address presents to view a very exhausted intellect, 
striving by a weak and incongruous effort, at once to evade the, 
force, and establish the truth of my position as firmly as possible, 



*30 

He endeavours to evade the force of my position (after saying 
that « God actually laid down his life for us"; by the following 
remark — « although only mortal flesh, in one sense can die, yet 
in common language we predicate the death of that whole person 
to whom the mortal flesh belonged. Thus when we sa\ John 
died, we do not mean that his soul died,, but only all that was 
mortal of John suffered death. When we say Paul was beheaded, 
Isaiah was sawn asunder, we do not mean that their souls were 
beheaded or sawn asunder! but that part of them that was ca- 
pable of these things w as thus served." By this very learned ex- 
position of the meaning of " common language," he meant to 
convey a kind of dim, half-formed idea, that when we speak 
of the death of Christ, « we only mean that all that was mortal" 
in Jesus of Nazareth ** suffered death !" — If this were not his 
intention, I am quite at a loss to discover how his remarks can 
have any relevancy to his subject ! ! ! If this were his intention, 
he stands before the public in the character of a prevaricator. 
But let us now recur to the conclusion he draws from this dis- 
play of the meaning of «» common language !" To his conclu- 
sion, which is one of the most singular specimens of equivoca- 
tion that 1 remember to have noticed, I would draw 7 the partieu- 
Jar attention of our readers ! — " So when the Bible tells us that 
God purchased the church with his own blood," (which, by the 
way, it never meant to tell us, as I have before shown) *< we do 
not understand that the divine nature suffered, for of suffering 
it is incapable." Here * Paul" had nearly been shipwrecked 
on the shores of Unitarianism ! — but by a dexterous manoeuvre 
lie turned about and made directly for the port of Tritheisin!!! 
" But," says he, "we understand that the mortal flesh which 
was crucified, and that blood which was shed on Mount Calva- 
ry, belonged not to a mere man, but to the mighty God ///" 

Let us now see if it be possible to pick any meaning out of 
this equivocal piece of jargon First, he tells us " the divine 
nature is incapable of suffering." — Now if the divine nature be 
incapable of suffering, it must be incapable of dying I and conse- 
quently " Paul" overturns his own theory — he contradicts his 
preceding and subsequent assertions ! " God did not lay down 
his life ! ! !"— " The God of Glory was not slain ! ! !"— " It'is not a 
fact that »* the Giver of life suffered his creatures to put him to 
death ! ! !" — unless, indeed, man could put his Creator to death, 
without inflicting upon him any suffering ! ! ! Secondly. He 
asserts that ** the mortal flesh which was crucified, and that 
hlood that was shed on Calvary belonged not to a mere man, but 
to the mighty God !" Now what are we to understand b\ this ? 
Are we to believe that the flesh and blood alluded to, are parts 
of the Deity ? Or are we to understand they were only his pro- 



*31 

perty ? If they were parts of the Diety ? they were " incapable 
of suffering," upon ** Paul's" own acknowledgement, ; if they 
were not divine, then God did not die 9 and consequently my op- 
ponent's theory falls to the ground ! — Thirdly, he has told us 
that " only mortal flesh, in one sense, can die." Now if that 
were " only mortal fitsh 9 '' that died on Calvary, where does he 
find his dead God? If it were not "only mortal flesh," then 
something besides " mortal flesh" can die — then the divine 
nature is capable of suffering ! ! ! Let « Paul" choose either 
alternative and he contradicts himself! 

The subsequent parts of his Letter do not however leave us 
in any doubt as to the part he will choose ! — He soon gives us 
a fine specimen of theological science ! He eagerly presses on 
his reader the awful and blasphemous idea, that « JEHOVAH, 
THE AUTHOR OF LIFE, THE CREATOR OF THE 
WORLD— WAS ABUSED AND KILLED, and that by the 
agency of the creatures he had made, and who at the same time 
were sustained by him in life and existence ! ! V 9 

When such absurd and disgusting doctrine as this, is held up 
to public view, as a part of Che Christian system, it is no won- 
der there is so much deism in the world. It has made more in- 
fidels a thousand fold, than the whole train of deistical writers 
put together. 

It is believed by all but atheists, that matter is inert — that all 
visible nature is perpetually sustained by divine power — that 
as human creatures we are incapable of drawing a single breath, 
but through the strength immediately communicated from the 
eternal source of life and motion — the author of our existence— 
that if this power were suspended/or a single moment, universal 
ruin would instantly ensue — creation would be annihilated, all 
nature would return to its original nonentity ! ! ! — Now if this 
view be correct, " Paul's" theory must be false ! At that very 
moment when «• Jesus bowed his head and gave up the Ghost," 
John xix. 30, all this beauteous creation, our earth and « the 
silvery moon its fair attendant," the « sun that shines by day," 
the " ten thousand that shine by night," with all their satellites, 
must have " sunk into everlasting obscurity." And so « Paul," 
the chivalrous champion for the honours of Trinitarianism, 
would not have been here to blaspheme that glorious and eternal 
divinity, " in whom we live, and move, and have our being;" 
with whom there « is no variableness neither shadow of turn- 
ing ;" from whom are « the issues of life," and without whom 
eternal chaos must reign sole monarch of an interminable 
dreary void !!! Acts xvii. 23. James i. 17. Prov. iv. 23. 

In my former essays, I have shown that the << man Christ Je- 
sus," 1 Tim. ii. 5. "who was made of a woman," Gal. iv. 4. « was 



432 

made like unto bis brethren," Heb. ii. If. " touched with a feel* 
ing of our infirmities— tempted like as we are." Heb. iv, 15* 
« made perfect through suffering," Heb. ii 10. " He learned 
obedience by the things which he suffered," Heb. v. 8. M in- 
creased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man," 
Luke ii. 52, He passed through all the stages of life, from the 
innocent helpless infant, to the perfection of manhood. He was 
" a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," Isa. liii. 3. As 
a man, he had his hopes and fears — his comforts and afflic- 
tions — as a man, he was subject to hunger and thirst and pain 
and conflict — as a man, he shrunk with horror at the prospect 
of a painful death — «* he sweat as it were great drops of blood," 
Luke xx. 44 ; and finally, as a man he died in agony, and was 
buried ! It is impossible that all this could be said of the Deity! 
<* the divine nature ;" as my opponent acknowledges <*is in- 
capable of suffering ;" consequently, the Scriptures quoted, do 
not relate to the «* divine nature! 99 and thus the sacred penmen 
have fully relieved us from the necessity of admitting that « the 
Creator of the world %va& hilled," 

« In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with 
God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.— All things were made by 
Him." — This divine, living, all-powerful Word, who spake 
and worlds sprang into existence ; who said : " Let there be 
light," and instantly a thousand suns flamed in the firmament 
of heaven ; in infinite mercy, for the redemption of sinful man, 
was (( manifested in the flesh." « For he took not on him the 
nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 
Heb. ii. 16. Thus CHRIST as the SAVIOUR, the RE- 
DEEMER, the RECONCILER, the JUDGE of a lost World, 
was GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, l Tim. iii. 16. the 
eternal fountain of divine life and light !" For in him was life 9 
and the life was the light of men."— and HE " was the true light 
that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John i. 1, 
3, 4, 9. 

It was in this divine character, ** God manifest in the flesh," 
that bending over the tomb of Lazarus, he cried with a loud 
voice : « Lazarus come forth," when lo ! the dead instantly 
obeyed, life resumed her dominion, « and he came forth bound 
hand and foot, with grave clothes." John xi. 43, 44. — It was in 
this divine character that he went into the chamber of the de- 
ceased damsel, and taking her by the hand, said : « Taiitha 
cumi, which is, being interpreted, damsel I say unto thee arise!" 
when instantly she was wrested from the grasp of death, and 
restored unto her weeping relatives, a blooming trophy of that 
power, which is indeed " the resurrection and the life." Mark v. 
41. 42. — It was in this divine character that « he arose and re- 



438 

buked the wind, and said unto the sea, peace be still !'■? and 
the wind ceased, and there was a great calm ! Mark iv. 39. — 
It was in this divine character, that "Jesus cried, saving: If 
any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink ;"« — and again : 
(i Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall 
never thirst, but the water that I shall give him, shall be in 
him, a well of water springing up unto everlasting life :" — and 
again : " I am the bread of life — he that cometh to me, shall 
never hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst," 
John iv. 14. vii. 37, 38. vi. 35. 

By failing to make this distinction, men have run into the 
grossest errors concerning the divine nature* — With the Bible 
in their hands they have taught doctrines, whieh would dis- 
grace the Koran of Mahomet, the Vedas of the Bramin, or the 
religion of our Indians ! — doctrines unknown to the primitive 
Christians — having their origin in a dark and turbuleut era, 
when the church had apostatized from Christ, her divine head- 
when she had forsaken Him, " the fountain of living water," 
and had " hewed out" to herself" cisterns, (systems of divinity,) 
broken cisterns, that could hold no water.'* Thus, age after 
age rolled away ! — One degree of darkness succeeded to an- 
other, until her glory had departed, and like fallen Babylon, 
she had become a den of wild beasts, a habitation of dragons — 
a court for owls— and a dancing place for satyrs, lsa. xiii. 21, 22. 

When at last, the professed church of Christ had lapsed into 
this awful and filthy state, — when every vestige of her primi- 
tive beauty was obliterated, God in condescending mercy rais- 
ed up a few worthy and intrepid reformers, who according to 
the measure of light and knowledge they had received, labour- 
ed faithfully for a restoration to her original purity! — .Under 
their circumstances, they did much for the honour of the glori- 
ous cause they had espoused. — In their situation, it is rather 
cause of admiration that they effected so much, than matter of 
censure that they did no more ! — But it is certain, they left 
much undone for their successors to do. — Unhappily for the 
cause of Christianity, their disciples instead of considering them 
as pioneers in the work of reformation, were so weak as to be- 
lieve that the great object was already accomplished !- — Under 
this impression, they set themselves down at ease, on the labours 
of their predecessors, and thus left the work unfinished, and 
the church embarrassed with numerous errors, the fruit of the 
apostacy — and among these the absurd and pernicious doctrine 
of a « Trinity of persons in the divine nature ! ! \" 

Trusting and believing, that every rational and unprejudiced 
Christian, (and I address myself in a particular manner to such 
of my readers) must see the absurditv of the Jthanasian seheme fi 
55 



434 

and reject with horror every sentiment which is hostile to the 
unity of the Deity. I will proceed to answer the arguments of 
my opponent, in support of his irrational and monstrous the- 
ory ! ! ! 

And first, we will consider the passage, John x. 15, 18 : «I 
lay down my life for the sheep. No man taketh it from me, but 
I lay it down of myself. 7 have power to lay it down, and I 
have power to take it again ! !" Hence, « Paul" concludes, 
" the speaker must have been a divine person ! For," he says, 
*f none but God has power to lay down life and take it again, 9 " 
This conclusion, however, is unwarranted by the text — it sup- 
poses what is not granted, and what is positively denied by our 
Lord himself ! ! ! — to wit, that this power was not derived from 
God ! — The very sentence following « Paul's" quotation, and 
in the same verse of which he has cited a part, contradicts his 
assumption : "This commandment have I received of my Fa- 
ther ! ! !" — and it is still more clearly contradicted, where Christ 
says : «« All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 
Matt, xxviii. 18. 

The power to lay down life, by submitting cheerfully to the 
violence of wicked men. has been given to thousands, as by re- 
ference to the martyrology of Europe, Asia and America, is 
very evident. The " power to take it again" always did, and 
always must remain, in the hand of the Deity — unless when 
« given" by him to another, as our Lord expressly declared it 
was to himself ! That this power was the power of God delegat- 
ed to Christ, is indubitably proved by other explicit testimony 
derived from himself: "Verily, the Son can do nothing of 
himself" — « I can of mine own self do nothing" — " Ye shall 
know that I do nothing of myself." John v. 19, 30. viii. 28. 
Thus 6 < Paul's" reasoning is proved fallacious ! and our 
'« nerves" have been "shocked" by what he calls "a Scrip- 
ture phrase," but which is nothing more than his absurd and 
shocking conclusion, drawn from his own preposterous notions 
of the divine nature ! ! ! 

The text, Phil. ii. 5, which, speaking of Christ, says: « Who 
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God," presents no difficulty, when considered in connec- 
tion with other Scripture passages : <* God was in Christ, 9 said 
the Apostle, 2 Cor. v. 19. « In him dvvelleth all the fulness of 
the Godhead," Col. ii. 9, and «' in him were hid all the trea- 
sures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3. Considering 
Christ in this point of view, it certainly could not rob the Deity 
of any part of his honour, to consider Christ " equal with God!" 
The conclusion is irresistible : Christ, in unity withthe Deity. 
may « be equal with God, 99 while it is contended, in the Ian - 



435 

guage of the Apostle, that he was « made like unto his bre- 
thren ; and in his own language, that he of himself could « do 
nothing ! ! !" 

From the text, 2 Cor. viii. 9 : (i Ye know the grace of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes 
he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich," 
« Paul" draws this strained and unwarranted conclusion: " It 
is proper to say that God made himself of no reputation !" that 
he " became poor" — <« suffered" — « died and was buried ! ! !" 
In the present instance, I think I may appeal to the reason, 
good sense and candor of every rational Christian, whether 
my opponent's reasoning is not blasphemous ! Can it be pos- 
sible that the Apostle, who was a man of judgment in natural 
and divine things, could suppose that God the Creator ever 
« died and was buried ."' that He, «« of whom are all things, and 
by whom are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6, became defunct — that 
he ceased to exist I and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph 
of Arimathea ! — can that sensibility which " shrinks and cries 
blasphemy" at such sentiments as these, he deemed of a « mor- 
bid" kind ? I think it will be more just to say, that he who en- 
tertains such sentiments, has neither sense nor <« sensibility !" 
Deeply involved in darkness and error, like the maniac wan- 
dering among the tombs, he may claim our pity — but as a guide 
be must be considered as the « blind leader," whose final des- 
tiny is a ditch ! ! ! That our Lord was 6i rich" in divine wisdom 
and power, is certain, and that for the sake of poor sinful man, 
he led a life of poverty in this world, is equally true ; but hence 
to infer that he was f« a divine person," is ridiculous, although it 
is about as good logic as my opponent has displayed in the other 
parts of his Letter ! 

The arguments drawn from passages in the book of Revela- 
tion, where our Lord is frequently spoken of in a two-fold 
character, have no force against us who freely acknowledge his 
divinity. It is true, that Christ as one with the Father, « the 
Word that was God," is the Alpha and Omega, the first and 
the last — as the son of the virgin Mary, it is not true of him. 
As it regards his humanity, the time was when he did not exist* 
To say that a divine Being was dead 9 is a contradiction in lan- 
guage. It is in fact to deny his divinity — " the divine nature 
is incapable of suffering," as « Paul" is forced to acknow- 
ledge. 

" But that God was killed by the agency of the creatures he 
had made, are things too high for you — they are above your rea- 
son and beyond your comprehension. 5 ' This I freely admit; 
and further, they are contrary to reason, and are absolute impos- 
sibilities ! ! ! Dogmas suited to a bedlam, and only adapted to 



436 

the speech of a maniac ! ! ! A transition from life to death is the 
greatest possible change that can be contemplated ! But Godis 
immutable, unchangeable, « the same yesterday, to-day and for- 
ever'' — « with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of 
turning." From the whole compass of words constituting lan- 
guage, a more false and absurd sentence could not be formed, 
than that « God died !" 

I will now notice a few of his general remarks : He begins 
by telling us, he has « no time to trifle." It would have been 
well if his address did not contradict his assertion ! — It appears 
lie had time to fabricate trifling tales, no way connected with 
his subject, and to make statements totally devoid of truth. 
Speaking of Samuel Fothergill, an eminent and truly evangeli- 
cal minister of our society, who died about fifty years ago, he 
says : «« in his dying exercises, he makes no mention of a Sa- 
viour's righteousness." Now I should like to know where 
** Paul" got this information ? was he present at his death ? 
The account we have of the state of his mind during his illness* 
is very brief — What my opponent calls his « dying exercises,'* 
are a few expressions made to some of his relations, who call- 
ed to see him on their way to London, some time before his 
death ! But suppose he never spoke of « a Saviour's righteous- 
ness," what then ? Does that prove that he did not depend on 
the righteousness of Christ for salvation ? By no means ! many 
talk much about it, that are wholly ignorant of the righteous- 
ness in question ! But Fothergill was not of this number. His 
happy redeemed soul, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, 
and supported by divine strength, could say : «« Though painful 
my nights and wearisome my days, yet I am preserved in patience 
and resignation! Death has no terrors, nor will the grave have any 
victory— ~my soul triumphs over death, hell and the grave." — " I 
have an evidence that I shall gain an admittance into the glorious 
church triumphant, far above the heavens /" The worst wish I 
entertain for my opponent, is, that he may make as happy an 
end, as the holy man he has so shamefully slandered ! 

Again, he says : ** In five long prayers affixed to his Ser- 
mons, he makes no petition in the name of Emmanuel /" That 
my readers may, in future, know how to estimate the veracity 
of my opponent, I will quote two passages from the prayers al- 
luded to ! 1st. « We pray thee, in the name and Spirit of thy 
dear Son, to direct us in the succeeding steps of our lives — to 
preserve us in an humble dependence and holy trust in thy 
power — and may we be continually favoured to make mention 
of thy name, with joy and gladness of heart." 2d. « Most gra- 
cious and adorable Fountain of Mercy, we humbly beseech thee, 
in the name and Spirit of thy dear Son, to write instructions 



*37 

upon all our minds— give us to ponder the excellency of thy 
loving kindness, and humble our minds in a sense of solemn 
gratitude to thee !" 

Again he asserts, that Fothergill « has but one sentence, and 
that of a very general kind, of confession for sin." I have not 
room to refute this slander by quotations from these prayers — 
suffice it to say, in the very first prayer, there are four particu- 
lar confessions of sin 9 and humble acknowledgments of divine 
mercy for their pardon ! ! ! 

Such, reader, is the character of our opponent ! He tells us, 
he speaks « in the fear of God." But if we judge from his ac- 
tions, what are we bound to believe ? Does the fear of God lead 
men into slander? Does it lead them to calumniate their fel- 
low-Christians? Does it lead them to say the things that are 
not? Fothergill, like " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ," tra- 
velled thousands of miles in the love of the Gospel on his own 
charges — he 6i freely gave" what he had " freely received" — 
he preached « Christ, the wisdom of God, and the power of 
God," in the true spirit of his divine Master — he called sin- 
ners to repentance — he invited the prodigal to the Father's 
house — he comforted the afflicted and disconsolate — he strength- 
ened the weak, and confirmed the strong — but he bore a steady 
testimony against a corrupt and hireling mercenary priest- 
hood ! ! ! — And <« Paui" is offended ! ! — and because he is of- 
fended, he slanders him ! Alas ! poor human nature ! ! ! — « Put 
forth thine hand nOw, and touch his bone and his skin, and he 
will curse thee to thy face." Only let interest be touched, and 
ftven the dead shall not rest in peace ! AMICUS. 



Friday, November 8, 1822. 

LETTER XXXIX. 

ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

♦ 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they 
are of God. Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh, is not of God ; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, 
whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now is it alrea- 
dy in the world." 1 John iv. 1. 3. 

That « Amicus" is an admirable painter even his antagonist 
will acknowledge ! That he is a most ingenious sophister, and 
excels most men in the talent of « making the worse appear 
the better reason," no reader of his will ever question. In caru 



438 

cature he is uncommonly apt ; and in sly ungenerous personal 
reflection no newspaper scribbler was ever more impertinent 
and unjust. No ignis fatuus was ever more brilliant, bewitch- 
ing, or dangerous to follow. He (t lures to bewilder, and daz- 
zles to blind." He gilds the pill with which he would poison 
community ; and dresses up his Quaker idol in all the glitter 
and finery of an Eastern deity ! 

** I am no orator, as Brutus is, — I only speak right on ;" 
and shall proceed without formality to strip his idol of its fan- 
tastic finery, and expose it to the public in its native drab. 

In the first place, he says some most beautiful and bewitching 
things of what he calls, the 6i divinity of Christ" but which alter 
all, amounts to nothing more nor less than the divinity of the 
Godhead ! His first specimen of ingenuity, lies in mistating the 
question about the divinity of Christ. The question is not 
whether the divine nature is divine, — or whether God is God 9 
as he would have us believe ! The divine nature which was 
te supereminently manifested" in Jesus of Nazareth, is what he 
admits to be divine, and what he is pleased to call the « divinity 
of Christ," The divinity of Christ in this sense, none but a 
« maniac or bedlamite" will deny. 

But the question between Unitarians ancj Christians is, 
whether Jesus of Nazareth was a divine person? — Whether that 
body and that blood which was born of the Virgin Mary, was a 
« part" of the God-man Mediator ? — Whether the union of that 
human nature with the divine nature was so perfect as to con- 
stitute but one person ; — so that we may attribute the actions of 
the human nature to a divine Person, — and consider the obe- 
dience and death, and all the actions and sufferings of Jesus of 
Nazareth, as the actions and sufferings of a divine Person ? 

That the Father is God nobody denies : that the "divine na- 
ture which dwelt in Christ" was divine, it would be silliness to 
question ; — but whether Jesus of Nazareth combined a divine 
and a human nature in himself, so that lie was both God and 
man in one person, is the true question of which Unitarians 
take the negative, and Trinitarians the affirmative. 

In proof that the human nature born of Mary was in personal 
union with the Divinity, I submit the following arguments. 

1. Because otherwise Jesus of Nazareth is no more divine 
than Moses or Peter or Paul. For in all these God was mani- 
fested, and through them showed forth Almighty works. Mo- 
ses, it is true, did not say to the stormy waves " Peace, be 
still !" — but, standing on the shore of the Red Sea, he said to 
the deep, si Be dry !" and to the waters, « separate and stand 
up on an heap !" He smote the rock and waters gushed out ; 
he denounced sentence, and the earth opened and swallowed up 



jm 



439 

Korah and his company ! Ex. xv. xvii. Num. xvi. These 
were divine works ; yet do we hold to the divinity of Moses ? 
No; Why not? Because the Deity had no personal union with 
the Jewish Law-giver. Moses and the Deity were two distinct 
beings. Again ; the Apostle Peter, turning to the dead body of 
Dorcas, said : *' Tabitha, arise ;" and she opened her eyes, 
and when she saw Peter she sat up," Acts ix. 40. Why not 
hold to the divinity of Peter ? Surely the « divine nature which 
was manifested in him" was divine ! And why not hold the 
divinity of all the Apostles? For our Lord speaking of them 
says : « the works that I do shall ye do also, and greater works 
than these shall ye do, because I go unto the Father." John 
xiv. 12. Now, why not consider all the Apostles as divine? 
Surely the divine nature which ** dwelt" in them, and was 
" manifested" in them, was divine ! You may say every thing of 
Moses which you have ever said of Christ. And the truth is, 
you no more hold the divinity of Jesus than you do the divinity of 
his Apostles, except that you grant him rather a greater measure 
of the divine Spirit ! But the whole Christian world denies 
their and holds to his divinity, because his body and soul, or his 
whole human nature, were in as complete union with the Son of 
God, as our bodies are with our souls. Jesus of Nazareth and the 
Almighty Son of God, are the names of one and the same person. 
There was a personal, or (as it is commonly called) an hypostatic 
cat union of the eternal Son of God with the human nature born of 
Mary. So that it may be as truly said, thatbody and that blood were 
a " part of the Deity," — were the body and blood of the Son of 
God, and that your body is a part of you, or the inferior nature 
united to the soul of Amicus, is a part of Amicus. And all the 
actions of Jesus of Nazareth were as much the actions of the 
Almighty Son of God, as the actions of your body, or of your 
inferior nature, are your actions. 

But every thing like a personal union you deny, and make 
Jesus of Nazareth a different person from the divinity to which 
he was united. So that the actions of the one are not the ac- 
tions of the other. Accordingly, you say in your last : « the 
man Christ Jesus was subject to poverty and pain ; as a man 
he sweat great drops of blood ; as a man he died and was buri- 
ed. It is impossible all this could be said of the Deity /" Now, I 
argue, that all this may be said of the Deity, or Jesus of Naza- 
reth was no more divine than Moses, or Peter or Paul. But 
as Jesus of Nazareth was divine, in a sense which no other 
man ever was, it follows there was in him a personal union of 
humanity and divinity. 

2. Without such a personal iinion, the obedience of Jesus could 
have had no more merit than the obedience of any other man f 



440 

And bis death could have made no more atonement than the 
death of any other man ! ! If he did not, as a divine person, 
obey the law and suffer its penalty, then we have no other 
atonement to wash away our guilt ; no other righteousness to en- 
title us to life ; no other propitiation for our sins, no other foun- 
dation for our hope, than what a man, a mere man could ac- 
complish ! ! ! 

Accordingly you, who deny the personal union, speak of the 
actions of Jesus as the actions of a mere man ; — his agonies 
and bloody sweat, as the sufferings of a mere man ; and are 
consistent with yourselves in stigmatizing the doctrine of «» vi- 
carious atonement" as « heathenish divinity !" But we, who 
hold a personal unionof the divine and human natures in Christ, 
can consistently regard his obedience and death as the works 
of a divine person. We can therefore look on his obedience as of 
infinite merit, and his death as an infinite atonement, — and can 
see solid ground for « believing" in him, and trusting in him, 
for t( wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption." 
1 Cor. i. 30. Whereas, without such an " union," we feel our- 
selves liable to the curse resting on **■ the man that trusteth in 
man !" Jer. xvii. 5. 

3. Without such an "union," we cannot understand many 
passages of Scripture, such as Heb. v. 8. " Though he were a 
Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered:" 
i. e. though he were a divine person, the beloved and everlast- 
ing Son of God, the adored of angels, above all law, and 
exempt from all suffering, yet « learned he obedience .-" he 
* humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and 
was made in the likeness of man, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross !" Phil. ii. 7. 

Now, there is no meaning in this passage, unless the union 
between the divine and human nature was so intimate, that the 
actions of the one nature might be attributed to the other na- 
ture, or to the whole person ; — no force in the passage, unless 
the works of the human nature were the works of the divine 
•< Son" of God. 

4. This personal union is supposed, in John i. 14 : « The 
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Why not say this 
of Moses, or Peter, or Paul ? and others in whom the Deity 
«' dwelt," and was iS manifested ?" Because the Word had no 
personal union with them ; their flesh and blood were not the 
flesh and blood of the Son of God. Obj. " This union of two 
natures in one person is incomprehensible." A. Not a whit 
more « incomprehensible" than the union of soul and body m 
ourselves. 

5. Upon no other principle could it have been said : " Ye 



441 

killed the Prince or Life !" Acts iii. 15. If the human na- 
ture was not in personal union with the divine, then they did not 
« kill the Prince of Life," — but a mere man, a person who was 
on a par with Peter or Paul. But the Bible says they did kill 
the Prince of Life ; therefore, the person who suffered, was 
not simply a man, but in his person united divinity and human- 
ity iii one. 

6. Upon no other principle could it be said : « They crucified 
the Lord of Glory !" 1 Cor. ii. 8. If there was not an union 
of two natures, a human and divine, in one person, so perfect 
that the sufferings of the inferior nature could be ascribed to 
the whole person, then the Apostle told a lie, and the Jews and 
others did not " crucify the Lord of Glory," but a mere man ! 

Obj. «< The divine nature, as you acknowledge, could not suf- 
fer." True ; but a divine -person may and did suffer. The di- 
vine nature did not, could not die; but a divine person, as I have 
proved, could and did die. — Your soul will never die, but you 
(a person compounded of body and soul) will die. Your soul 
cannot crumble into dust, but it is written : '* dust thou art, and 
unto dust srialt thou return." Your soul, or higher nature, 
neither eats nor drinks, nor sees nor hears, nor bleeds ; hut all 
these things may be said of you. So Christ could not suffer or 
die in his higher or divine nature ; but He (as a compound per- 
son, having a mortal as well as immortal nature) could both 
suffer and die. 

7. Upon no other principle, could the Saviour be said to 
"wash us in his blood." Rev. i. s. "Unto him that loved us 
and washed us from our sins in Ms own blood, and hath made 
us kings and priests unto God, even his Father, unto him be 
glory and dominion forever and ever !" Now a mere man could 
never « make us kings and priests unto God," nor be entitled to 
« glory and dominion forever and ever ;" a mere man could ne- 
ver " wash us in his blood." The blood of a mere man, no more 
than the « blood of bulls and goats," could ever *« take away sin." 
The blood, therefore, by which we are washed, or by which our 
sins are expiated, was the blood of a divine person. But a di- 
vine person cannot shed " his blood," or die for us, without 
assuming human nature into a personal union with the divine. 

8. Upon no other principle could the Lord Jesus say : «* I am 
the first and the last, he which was dead, and is alive." Rev. 
ii. 8. Of the « First and the Last," (or the Deity,) it could 
never have been said : " he was dead, 9 ' unless he had assumed 
human nature into personal union, so as to make^ himself capa- 
ble of death. It is impossible the immortal God should ever die 
without taking a mortal nature into such an union, that the ac- 
tions of that inferior nature may be attributed to the whole 

66 



ai£ 

person* But as it is expressly asserted, that « the First and 
Last was dead," it follows, He who is the First and the Last did 
take humanity into personal union with himself. "He took not 
on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, — was 
made of a woman," &c. 

9. Upon no other principle could it be said « Herein perceive 
we the love of God, because he (that is, God) laid down his life 
for us." 1 John iii. 16, or Acts xx. 2S, ** Feed the church of 
God, which he purchased with his own blood." Now, unless 
God, that is, the Son of God, took human nature into personal 
union with himself, he had no « life" which he could « lay 
down," no " blood," which it was possible for him to shed for 
the redemption of the church ! The life and blood of Jesus of 
Nazareth were not « His" life and blood at all, unless Jesus of 
Nazareth was in personal union. 

There is no other way of getting over the plain doctrine of 
these passages, but that very convenient one, to which you fre- 
quently resort, — expunging or altering the text ! ! 

Obj. <*To say that God laid down his life for us, is false, ab- 
surd and blasphemous !" Of this I have nothing more to say, 
than that it is flat contradiction of the Bible, and giving the lie 
direct to the passages I have quoted ! ! 

10. That the human nature born of the virgin was the human 
nature of a divine person, is evident from Isa. vii. 14: "A vir- 
gin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name 
Emmanuel," i. e. « God with us.'' The same truth is evident 
from Isa. ix. 6 : " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, 
and his name shall be called the Mighty God." Now, un- 
less God will order a thing to be called by a wrong name, that 
body which was born of the virgin, was the body of the' "Migh- 
ty God.'" When this body yielded its life upon the cross, *<God 
laid down Ms life for us; and when this blood was shed, '« God 
purchased the church with his own blood." 

I have made the above remarks to warn the public of the fol- 
lowing important truths : without remembering which, this con- 
troversy cannot be understood. 

1. That by the term « Christ," you mean something very differ- 
ent from what Christians mean, when they use the term. The 
whole Christian world uses it to denote a person who exists as 
" God and man in two distinct natures but one person forever." 
Ton use the term to signify not a person — (for says " Amicus," 
to infer that he is a divine person is ridiculous !") — but a nature, 
an influence from God. In other words, by " Christ," you 
mean nothing more nor less than "internal light ! !" Internal 
light is what you mean when you speak of « Christ," — the Sa- 
viour"— the « Reconciler"— the « Redeemer"— the « Judge !" 



443 

This it is that atones—remits — and redeems and saves. This, 
in short, is your «• God," your Bible, your baptism, your 
Lord's supper, your all. And this internal light 1 have al- 
ready proved to be a Jaek o' lantern ! 

2. Your " divinity of Christ," accordingly, is a totally differ- 
ent thing from the divinity which all Christians hold. They 
mean the divinity of that mysterious person, whom I have de- 
scribed as God and man in personal union. You mean the 
divinity of that something, call it " divine life, light, power, or 
grace," which dwells in every man — which dwelt in Peter 
and Paul in a high degree, and in Jesus of Nazareth "super- 
eminently.'' You will be understood hereafter, therefore, when 
you speak of the " divinity of Christ," as simply meaning the 
" divinity of internal light ! !" 

And now, ye deluded followers of a misguiding " spirit," we 
have « tried your spirit" by the Word of God ; and since you 
" deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" — or become a 
man by taking human nature into personal union, — we set you 
down as *ttK>t of God," but of that " anti-christ which was to 
come" intWhe world, John iv. 3. No longer, therefore, de- 
ceive the public by pretending to hold the divinity of Christ, — 
nor claim the name of " Christian." while you reduce Jesus of 
Nazareth to a level with Moses ; and make the merits of his 
life and death, the merits of a mere man! ! You hold, indeed, 
that the divine nature is divine, that God is God, — and you 
perhaps admire your wisdom ! — but Christians hold as their 
foundation a doctrine which you reject and ridicule, — even that 
Jesus of Nazareth was a divine person — that he who was born 
of the virgin was Emmanuel ; — that he who was a man of sor- 
rows — who was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised 
for our iniquities — who was made a curse for us that the curse 
might be removed from us, was Jehovah our righteousness ! ! 

Cease therefore your « feigned words," and acknowledge 
that in your views of " Christ," and of the " divinity of Christ," 
you differ from the whole Christian world. PAUL. 

Sixth-day, 11th mo. 15, 1822. 

LETTER XXXV1I1. 

" Not every one that saith unto me Lord. Lord, shall enter into 
the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven." Matt. vii. 21. 

The most striking feature in my opponent's last production, 
is its asperity! I cannot even return his compliment, by say- 



444 

ing lie is an « ingenious sophister," or good at « caricature !" 
his paintings are like nothing in the natural or spiritual worlds ! 
They are the distorted images of his own dark imagination. 
That he is " no orator," among men of refined and cultivated 
minds, we can readily believe ; though it is probable he might 
pass for one in " the seat of the scorner," and where possibly 
he might " make the worse appear the better reason." With 
a discerning public this is now impracticable. His two last 
Letters have fixed the character of his doctrine, and his own 
character as its defender. 

That the character of his doctrine is blasphemous, I fully de- 
monstrated in my last. — That it is a jumble of irrational and 
contradictory propositions, was proved from " Paul's" own 
statements. From the dilemma in which he was involved, by 
three several conclusions, he has not extricated himself; on 
the contrary, like a « bull in a net," his difficulties increase 
with every struggle. In his preceding Letter, he told us that 
"JEHOVAH, THE AUTHOR OF LIFE, THE CREA- 
TOR OF THE WORLD, WAS KILLED ;" agpn his last 
he tells us, that the « body which was born of the vvrgin Mary, 
was THE BODY OF THE MIGHTY GOD ! ! !" So then, 
we are to understand, that HE whom «< the heaven of heavens 
cannot contain," 1 Kings viii. 27, — HE who sitteth upon the 
circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grass- 
hoppers," Isa. xl. 22, — He, before whom all nations are as 
nothing, and counted to HIM less than nothing and vanity," 
ver. 17, — He who is infinite — «« whose centre is every where, 
hut whose circumference is not to be found," was for nine 
months circumscribed within the narrow limits of the womb ! ! ! 
Now, I think, that any man who can believe such a sentiment, 
must either be deplorably priest-ridden, or far gone in his do- 
tage! ! ! When « Paul" shall make any converts to this doc- 
trine, he may truly call them « the deluded followers of a 
misguiding spirit !" 

Now 1 can see no good reason, if my opponent seriously be- 
lieves the doctrine he offers for our acceptance, why he might 
not turn Roman Catholic at once — adopt « our Lady's Psal- 
ter" — say his « Ave Maria," and begin his prayers with — '* Oh 
Mary Mother qfGodJJ!" The most seraphical Doctor Bona- 
venture, has certainly left "Paul" but a little way behind 
him in absurdity ; and from his late efforts, I think it probable, 
my opponent will soon overtake him ! 

« The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
From the very carnal views of my opponent, and from the con- 



445 

temptuous manner in which he speaks of divine things, it is 
evident, that he has rejected the only means by which we ever 
can indubitably understand the sacred text. As "holy men of 
old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" — so it is 
equally true, that no man can ever read the Scriptures in their 
original sense, unless his mind be illuminated by the same di- 
vine Spirit! And as there is but one divine Spirit, so the 
Apostle plainly describes its nature. « God is light." 1 John 
i. 5. And «* God, who commanded thelight to shine out of dark- 
ness, hath skined in our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge 
of the glory of God," 2 Cor. iv. 6. — «and he is the true light 
that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, John 1. 
But there is something so shocking to my opponent in the idea 
of light, that it puts him quite out of humour. Light !-— .the very 
dawn of which, in the natural world, fills the woodlands with 
music, and all animated nature with joy and gladness ! — Light! 
divine light — in which all the children of God rejoice together ! 
in which they that « walk," have <* fellowship one with an- 
other" — and enjoy all the blessings of the new creation," Light ! 
a single ray of which fills the Christian heart with comfort, 
throws my benighted opponent into a paroxysm of anger, from 
which he does not seem to get relief, until he has profaned this 
heavenly gift with the most approbrious names ! Thus he calls 
** GOD, who commands the light to shine out of darkness," a 
" Jack o 9 lantern." — CHRIST, the true light that lighteth every 
man that cometh into the world," he tells us, is « an ignis fatu- 
ns." — He who « was set to be a light of the gentiles, and for 
God' salvation to the ends of the earth," Acts xiii. 47, he calls : 
«« a misguiding Spirit ! J /" 

Now how are we to account for this?— -There must be some* 
thing very much out of order in this lover of darkness, or he 
would not expose himself so disreputably to the world ! It would 
seem reasonable to conclude, that he must be in the habitual 
violation of some divine command ! for *« he that doeth evil hat- 
eth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be 
reproved ; but he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds 
may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God;" John iii. 
20, 21. If « Paul" would examine closely, perhaps he might 
discover, that at least two or three times a week, he violates an 
express injunction of our Lord! Matt. x. 8. Well did Christ 
say to such : « ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swal- 
low a camel." Matt, xxiii. 24. 

" Paul" may call this « a sly ungenerous personal reflec- 
tion :" — He has several times accused me of « personality" — 
and once the editor joined in the accusation ! But I can assure 
them, they are both mistaken. Since the beginning of this con- 



446 

froversy I have never made a single personal allusion to my op- 
ponent.—! challenge them both to shew the contrary — my pa- 
pers are all before them. I know nothing of " Paul" but what 
he has publicly told of himself ! — that he is one of those * priests" 
described by the prophet : i6 who teach for hire" — and •« divine 
for money," Mic. iii. 11. But whether he lives in new Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, or Delaware, I do not know ! nor do I care ! I 
have nothing to do with his person, though, as an advocate for 
the truth of the Gospel, I have to do with his practices ; — and 
these, while I can have the liberty of speech, or of the pen, I 
shall continue to expose, as antichristian ; adverse to the ex- 
press commands of Christ ; and dangerous, as being the source 
of innumerable evils in the Church and state ! ! To call this " a 
sly or personal reflection," is a perversion of language ! Ami- 
cus, conscious of the strength of his position, and the truth of 
his statements, has candidly and boldly exposed his views — too 
openly to comport with the comfort of his opponent, as is evident 
from the language and temper of his Letters ! 

Let us now recur to " Paul's" doctrine, as stated in his last, 
and see how it will accord with other parts of his scheme. Af- 
ter quoting Isa. ix. 6, he tells us : «« that body which was born of 
the Virgin, was the body of the mighty God." The text, to 
suit his purpose, be however quoted but partially ; that we may 
have a full view of the subject, I will copy it from the Bible : 
66 Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shallbe called— 
WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, THE MIGHTY GOD, 
THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF 
PEACE." Now if the Son which was begotten of the Holy 
Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary — was the mighty God, the 
everlasting Father, then were this " Son" and " the everlasting 
Father," the offspring the Holy Ghost ! ! ! and then saint Atha- 
nasiaus was mistaken, for he tells us : " the Son is of the 
Father alone," and « the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the 
Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." 
But «.« Paul" tells us, that both the Father and the Son, were 
begotten of the Holy Ghost ! ! ! Taking the doctrine of my op- 
ponent and saint Athanasius together, it will stand thus — The 
Father begot the Son, and the Holy Ghost proceeded from the 
Father and the Son, and afterwards, to wit,/ottr thousand years 
from the Creation, the Holy Ghost begat the Father and the 
Son ! ! ! This may truly be called « a mystery !" 

I presume this kind of doctrine will suit none but Trinita- 
rians, I will therefore review the texts from Isaiah, and see if 
they do not convey to those who prefer reason to absurdity, and 
truth to error, a very different meaning ! — « Behold a virgin 



447 

shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emma- 
nuel." Isaiah vii. 14. It is very observable, that the Prophet 
does not say — •* and shall call him Emmanuel'* — but, shall call 
« his name Emmanuel." So in the other text : *« and his name 
shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father, &c."— 
it does not say, he shall be called the mighty God, &c. — This 
circumstance rightly considered, will I think, lead us safely 
out ot the mystery! — As [observed in a former essay, "the 
name" signifies the power. By a metonomy, it is used to shew 
the quality, the efficiency of an agent! As « Cruden" says: 
" the name of God signifies his wisdom, power and goodness." — 
Thus, when the good king Asa prayed : ** Help us O Lord our 
God, for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this 
multitude — let not man prevail against thee? % Chron. xiv. 11. 
When the Psalmist said : « They that know thy name will put 
their trust in thee. 19 Ps. ix. 10. When the prophet said : *« The 
name of the Lord is a strong tower, the righteous runneth into 
it aqd is safe," Prov. xviii. 10. When « the seventy returned 
with joy saying, Lord, even the Devils are subject unto us 
through thy name." Luke x. 17. and in a hundred other places, 
where the word 4 * name" occurs, it is evident, that reference 
is made to divine power, and not to mere sounds ! 

We will now recur to the fulfilment of those momentous pro- 
phecies. — It will throw a clear and convincing light on this po- 
sition. And first, Before the birth of our Lord, an angel ap- 
peared unto Joseph, and speaking of this event, said of Mary — 
«< she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name 
JESUS." Here we find divine Wisdom uses the same phraseo- 
logy — " thou shalt call his name JESUS :" which signifies « A 
Saviour" — and gives us the reason, «• for he shall save his peo- 
ple from their sins." Matt. i. 21. See also Luke i. 34. Here 
we see the name clearly signifies the power, which the Apostle 
calls, « Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Rom. 
i. 24. Second ; How exactly does this idea harmonize with the 
whole tenor of the Gospel. *« They shall call his name Emma- 
nuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us." Matt. i. 23. — 
Our Lord tells us, 6i God is a Spirit." John iv. 24, He does 
not say he is compounded of flesh and spirit! And the Apostle 
declares, that « God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
himself." 2 Cor. v. 19. f* For in him dwelt all the fulness of 
of the Godhead." Col. ii. 9. Christ was then, « God mani- 
fest in the flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 16. and so he is to this day ! 

When we consider these texts, in connection with a number 
of our Lord's declarations respecting himself, it appears to me 
impossible to avoid the force of the conclusion, that " God in 
Christ is the true and exclusive divinity of Christ." — My op 



448 

ponent tells us « Jesus of Nazareth was a diriwe person / Our 
Lord tells us he was " a man." — " But now," said he to the 
the Jews, " ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the 
truth, which I have heard of God. 39 John viii. 40. Peter stiles 
him ** Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, 
by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did btj him." 
Acts. ii. 22. My opponent tells us, " that the body which was 
born of the virgin, was the body of the mighty God." — The Apos- 
tle tells us, " he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took 
on him the seed of Abraham, and in all things, was made like 
unto his brethren." Heb. ii. 16, 17. So that it clearly appears, 
that Paul the Apostle, and " Paul" the Trinitarian, were of dif- 
ferent opinions ! and as both cannot be true, I much prefer the 
doctrine of the Apostle as being more consistent with Scripture, 
reason, and common sense ! 

« Paul" has already admitted that « the divine nature is in- 
capable of suffering! !" and yet he insists, that Jesus of Naza- 
reth was a divine person. Now if the divine nature be " inca- 
pable of suffering," either Jesus endured no suffering, or this 
" divine person" was not of a divine nature. 

Thus, when we view his scheme in any point of light what- 
ever, it presents us with nothing but contradictions and absur- 
dities ! ! ! There is not any thing the least « bewitching" in it. 
It "bewilders" without "alluring!" — If it "poison" people, 
it will not be*beeause it is " gilded," but because they take it 
with every property that can disgust a sensible mind, exposed 
to view ! ! ! His Calvinistic idols, are devoid of every attraction, 
they neither charm the understanding nor delight the fancy ! ! ! 

The vulgar doctrine of " the Trinity," in connection with 
that of the " atonement," presents to view a specimen of those 
absurdities engendered by Antichrist, in the night of the apos- 
tacy, when " darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness 
the people." — It supposes the Deity divided into three " dis- 
tinct and separate" parts or persons. One of those persons 
wrathful and implacable, another merciful and gracious — that 
one, by a kind of transubstantiation, was made mortal, and was 
killed by the creatures he had made ! — It supposes God was 
slain, to make satisfaction to himself — that the immortal Jehovah 
was put to death by mortal men, to appease his own wrath ! ! I 
Or that one part of the Deity was killed, to appease the other 
part, and put him into a capacity to be merciful. It supposes 
our Heavenly Father is more unmerciful than the wickedest 
man on earth ! ! !— that he cannot/orgiue a sinner at all, but that 
his debt must be paid to the uttermost farthing ! ! ! — It teaches 
us, that we are not in the least indebted to him for our redemp- 
tion, since he would not let us escape^ until another had paid 



449 

his demand in full — and it teaches us, that since the debt of sin 
is already paid, we may live just as we please, for justice can- 
not demand to be paid twice for the same debt — and therefore 
God cannot punish us for our sins ! ! ! 

These, gentle reader, are but a small part of the irrational 
consequences of my opponent's scheme, which, he would make 
us believe, contains the only Christian views of Scripture truth! 
Let us now see if our Lord and his Apostles did not preach a 
different doctrine : — In order to illustrate my views, I will first 
show what it is that separates God and the soul of man, and 
make an " atonement" necessary. — 2d, Whence it arises. — 3d, 
What are its effects — and 4th, How it may be removed. 

1st. That which separates God and the soul, is sin — the dead- 
liest foe to human happiness. God is an ever blessed and over- 
flowing fountain of divine love and mercy — always desiring to 
pour out the richest blessings on his creatures. He delighteth. 
to do us good, and requires nothing on our part but a preparation 
or qualification to receive it! But sin stands as a "partition 
wall" between God and us ; and while it stands, is an effectual 
barrier between us and the blessings that await our acceptance. 

2d. All sin originates in a contrariety of our will to the divine 
will. If man were always to maintain a subjection of his own 
will to the will of his Creator, he could never commit a sin ! 
God manifests his will to man by his own Holy Spirit ; some- 
times through the medium of the Holy Scriptures — sometimes 
by the ministry of the Gospel—sometimes by what is called con- 
science, but principally by that which the inspired writers call, 
"The law written in the heart,'' Rom. ii. 15. "The law of the 
spirit of life in Christ Jesus," Rom. viii. 2. " The law of faith," 
Rom. ii. 27. " A measure or manifestation of the spirit," which 
"is given to every man to profit withal." Rom. xii. 7. "The 
grace of God that bringeth salvation, and which hath appear- 
ed unto all men ! !" Tit. ii. 11, &c. &c. &c. 

3d. The effect of sin is an alienation of the soul from the 
source of happiness — from the divine life. " For the wages of 
sin is death," Rom. vi. 23. When any one wilfully acts con- 
trary to the divine law — he sins; he stands in opposition to 
God, and so standing, he is separated from God, and is under 
the curse of the law ! He is " dead in trespasses and sins," 
and has no more power to restore himself to a life with God, 
and communion with his Maker, than a dead man has power to 
raise himself to animal life, and return to a communion with 
his fdhw-creatures! — Thus stood Adam, when he ate the for- 
bidden fruit ; and thus stands every son of Adam, when he acts 
contrary to the known will of God ! 
57 



450 

Here poor man needs an ATONEMENT indeed ! Now for 
a Saviour, or he perishes forever! This brings us to consider — 

4th. How his sin may be removed — how the dead may be re- 
stored to life ! Here we have plain Scripture testimony from 
the highest authority, which points out the only effectual Re- 
deemer, and what is requisite on our part, in order to know « an 
effectual redemption, a thorough change;" — " not an imputation 
of righteousness" whilst we are actually in sin — " but a real 
substantial righteousness in the heart and life," which only was 
and is "THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST."—" Jesus 
saith unto her, I am the resurrection and the life, he that be- 
lieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ; and who- 
soever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." John xi 25, 
26. In this declaration of our blessed Lord, it is evident, that he 
was speaking of the death of sin and resurrection to a holy life ; 
and of no other death or resurrection whatever, as some have ab- 
surdly imagined ! In a carnal point of view, the declaration is 
not true ! A dead man is not a subject for the exercise of faith — 
and a living man, though the most genuine believer on earth, 
shall as surely die as the greatest sinner! — When, therefore, 
our L:>rd said : " I am the resurrection and the life," he in 
fact published himself to the world, as the only means of salva- 
tion — ** for there is no other name under heaven, given among 
men, whereby we must be saved," but the name, which is the 
power of Christ. There is no other power that can raise the 
* dead in trespasses and sin," and restore us unto life with 
God ! 

How beautifully does the Apostle elucidate this view r in his 
epistle to the Ephesians, chap. ii. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 : " And you 
hath he quickened, [raised unto life] who were dead in tres- 
passes and sins ; wherein in time past ye walked, according 
to this world:" — *' but God, who is rich in mercy, for h\s great love 
wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath 
quickened us [made us to live] together with Christ, and hath 
raised us up [hath been our «* resurrection"] and made us to sit- 
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." — « For by grace 
are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the 
gift of God ! !" 

No two passages could possibly run more parallel, than the 
declaration of our Lord, John xi. 25, 26, and this passage of 
the Apostle. Christ declares: « He that believeth in me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live." The Apostle declares : that 
" they who had been dead in sins, God had quickened and raisM 
unto life ! And this gives a true, and the only true view of the 
Scripture doctrine of atonement! Reconciliation and atonement 
are synonymous terms under the Gospel ; they both mean the 



451 

same thing — a union of things that had been separated ! — Sin 
only can separate God and the soul, Isaiah Jix. 2. And sin 
must be removed, before God can be reconciled to man ! The 
rebellious will of man must be brought into subjection to the 
will of God, before the Gospel atonement can possibly be made ! 
before we can be brought into union and communion with our 
Creator ! 

The word *« atonement" occurs but once in our translation of 
the New Testament. The original word, in other places, is 
rendered "reconciliation:" our English word " atonement," 
conveys precisely this idea. It appears to be compounded of 
AT and ONE, and MENT, signifying that parties who have 
differed, have been brought together into a ONENESS. — 
<* We also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
we have now received the At — one — merit," Rom. v. 11. For, 
saith the Apostle : ** He is our p; j ace, who hath made both one;" 
that is, reconciled us to God," and hath « broken down the mid- 
dle wall of partition between us." Eph. ii. 14. 

Any other atonement than this, is a sin-pleasing doctrine ! — 
it is false and dangerous ! — it sets people at ease in their sins { — 
It makes them satisfied in an unsanctified and corrupt state ! 
It supposes a man may be imputatively righteous, while he is 
actually wicked ! — imputatively holy, while actually in sin I — im- 
putatively reconciled, while the *"» middle wall of partition" be- 
tween his polluted soul and divine Purity, has not been "bro- 
ken down ! ! !" — It supposes the cry of « Lord, Lord," will save 
him, while he is doing the works of the Devil ! and finally, it 
supposes that righteousness may have fellowship with unrighte- 
ousness ! — that light may have communion with darkness ! — . 
that Christ may have concord with Belial ! and he that believ- 
eth, may have part with an infidel ! ! ! 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15. 

Fellow-Christians, " be not deceived — God is not mocked. 
Such as we sow, such shall we reap. If we sow to the flesh, 
of the flesh we must reap corruption — if we sow to the Spirit, 
we shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." My opponent ridi- 
cules this doctrine ! but regard him not ! He contradicts the 
plain words of Christ and the Apostles — and the experience of 
thousands, who have *« dug deep" (through the vile rubbish of 
human tradition, accumulated by priestcraft, to cover the foun- 
dation of the Prophets and Apostles) and have laid their foun- 
dation on the Rock of Ages, CHRIST THE TRUE CORNER 
STONE ; which, said the Apostle, «« was set at nought of you 
builders, but which is become the head of the corner." Acts 
iv. 11. AMICUS. 



*52 

Friday, November 22, 1822 

LETTER XL. 

THE TRINITY, DIVINITY, AND ATONEMENT OY CHRIST. 

Every day increases my conviction, that your foundation is 
the "sand;" — that you have nothing of Christianity but the 
name ! It is a favourite rule of yours, as it ought to be of all, 
** Ye shall know them by their fruits." By this rule I judge of 
your Society. If there by any religion in your members, we 
may expect to find it in your preachers and public leaders. We 
may expect to hear something of it in their dying language and 
last exercises in this world. The last words of Fothergill were 
noticed in a former number. He says not half so much of Christ, 
as a Mussulman would have said about his prophet ! — Yet I 
am much mistaken if his case is singular. In " Poulson's Ad- 
vertiser," of Nov. 6, is a long obituary publication, which is a 
disgrace to the Society that published it! — yet I believe it a 
fair specimen of your Society, The writer, from his being the 
chosen companion of two female *« Public Friends," appears to 
be like the individual whose obituary he writes: « an eminent 
member of the Society of Friends, — held deservedly in high 
estimation for his practical piety and active virtue." The ac- 
count is introduced, with " blessed are the dead that die in the 
Lord, &c." After which we have a journal of his sickness 
(without a single spiritual remark from the patient !) for eight 
days or more. He then expressed a strong anxiety to see the 
writer of his eulogy, to whom he had something to communicate. 
He came. With much solemnity he commits to him his sur- 
veyor's notes ! — assures him he has "nothing further to say on 
public business ; and as to private business his mind was en- 
tirely easy." — (Why, gentle reader?) 6i I have endeavoured to 
perform all my duties, both public and private, to the best of my 
knowledge ; — my mind is at ease, and I feel perfectly satisfied .'" 
(Was not Socrates '* at ease and perfectly satisfied ?") After 
this be says : " i wish my friends to know, that I feel towards 
them all, as Addison felt towards his young friend. If I die, 
I shall exchange this world for a better !" (Did not Franklin, 
a professed deist, express a similar hope !) These were his 
last expressions, and this is the sum total of those " Christian" 
feelings, which the eulogist extols so highly ! ! ! Yet in view 
of this he exclaims : " Mark the perfect man, and behold the 
upright I? and takes it for granted he has "entered into the 
joy of bis Lord !" Not one word of Christ/ — not a syllable of 
v^ce for sin; — of faith in a Saviour ; or of a change of 
- >t a single intimation that he felt himself a sinner 9 or 



453 

knew that Jesus Christ had come into the world ! ! Like Fo- 
thergill, he has not a single Christian expression — not a pro- 
fession of one doctrine peculiar to the Gospel — not a word of 
sin — not a word of mercy ! — He only proclaims his rectitude and 
resignation — enters heaven in all the majesty of merit, and 
takes eternal glory as it were by right ! ! ! These things, with 
experimental Christians, need no comment. They speak vo- 
lumes. Your « Christianity" is a hypocrite ! 

The above is a practical illustration of that " substantial 
righteousness of heart and life,"on which you rely as an " atone- 
ment for your sins ! 

After the late avowals of your advocate, he must be sceptical 
indeed who doubts your heresy. After you have denied the 
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, the infallibility of the 
Apostles, — the correctness of our translation — and the suffici- 
ency of the Bible as a rule, — (see your Letters on internal 
light) — after you have stigmatized Trinitarianism as " Tri- 
theism," — after you have rejected the doctrine of all Christen- 
dom concerning the divinity of Christ, denying the divinity of 
his person, and admitting only the divinity of his name, — after 
you have rejected the atonement, and directed us for justifica- 
tion to our own personal righteousness, he must be blind him- 
self, who does not see your blindness ! 

1 have been lately reviewing your Letters on the Trinity, and 
have been much struck with the boldness, and even blasphemy 
of your sentiments. And as the subject hath an intimate con- 
nection with our present subject, before noticing his last, I will 
briefly notice a few things, which if <* Amicus" has proved any 
thing, he has fully proved 

1. That the terms «« Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," have no 
meaning as they are used in Scripture ! In page 369, he says : 
«* Christ and the Father are convertible terms." The terms 
" Father," and « Christ," and the « Comforter," are, when 
applied to the Deity, perfectly synonymous ; and consequently, 
God the Father, is Christ the Saviour I .'" And in page 377 he 
says : « I showed that the terms Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 
when applied to the divinity, mean the same thing / .'" It seems 
then, that " Father" expresses no paternal, and <* Son" no filial 
relation ! and the " Holy Ghost" no spiritual character ! What 
a pity the sacred penmen had not been kept, by inspiration, from 
applying to the Deity epithets which have no meaning I 

2. He has discovered that the account of our Lord's baptism 
(Matt. iii. 16, 17.) is a mere farce ! — suited to the carnal no- 
tions of the Jews ! " To suppose," says he, page 380, ** one 
person of the Godhead walking up out of the water, while a 
second person is descending in the shape of a dove, and a third 



4>5& 

person uttering a voice from heaven, is altogether inconsistent, 
and does indeed appear a gross and carnal conception." 
Reader, look at your Bible, remember it was written not for 
learned philosophers, but for humble every-day people, and 
judge whether the above account was intended as a farce, or 
as an exhibition of the " Three that bear record in heaven !" 

3. That our Lord used " vain repetitions" in the form of bap- 
tism, Matt, xxviii. 19, <* Go teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." Now, says " Amicus," these terms all " mean the 
same thing /" Quere, did not our Lord understand language 
as well as " Amicus ?" 

4. That our Lord used words without meaning and calculated 
to mislead, w 7 hen he spake of sending the Comforter, John xiv. 
26, « But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." 
And again, xvi. 7 : «* It is expedient for you that J go away, 
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but 
if I depart, I will send him unto you." How plain, how con- 
sistent, how beautiful is this language on supposition of the 
Trinity ! and how dark, how unsatisfactory, yea deceptive 
upon any other scheme ! 

5. He objects to any argument heing drawn from "pro- 
nouns .'" In answer to one of my arguments, drawn from John 
xiv. 23, i( If a man love me he will keep my words, and my 
Feather will love him, and we will come unto him and take up 
our abode with him," — he remarks very seriously, (see page 
408,) that " this argument, like most of my opponent's scheme, 
is founded on the use of the pronouns/ The use of personal 
pronouns when applied to the Deity does not prove personality." 
Quere ; if arguments cannot be drawn from « pronouns," can 
any be drawn from nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other part of 
speech ? 

6. That no «* mystenj" is to he believed. He has all along 
used « mystery" and « inconsistency" as " convertible terms." 
Of course when the Apostle calls the ministers of the JGospel 
"the stewards of the mysteries of God," 1 Cor. iv. 1, he must 
mean they are preachers of things not to be believed!!! And 
when he says, 1 Tim. iii. 16, " Great is the mystery of Godli- 
ness, God was manifest in the flesh," he must mean « great is 
the absurdity of Godliness, which teaches God was manifest in 
the flesh, or that Christ was a divine person ! !" The fact is, 
every doctrine of the Bible contains something mysterious and 
incomprehensible, and if we are to believe nothing but what we 
ean fully comprehend, we may give up the doctrine of regenera- 



Hon, which our Lord describes as a mystery. John iii. H. and 
turn universal sceptics. 

7. That the true God is a " phantom," a "nothing !" For 
he has again and again argued, until the public were tired, 
that the «« Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are either three '< sub- 
stances," or "three nothings or phantoms." (See page 338.) As to 
their being «* three substances," he has said this is equivalent to 
« three Gods," which he rejects. According to his own and 
Perm's argument, therefore, he has proved, if he has proved 
any thing, that these are «• three unreal, unsubstantial phan- 
toms or nothings ! ! !" Now as these terms are used in Scrip- 
ture as the name of the only true God, it follows, so far as he has 
proved any thing, he has proved that the God of Israel is a 
" phantom," a " nothing ! !" 

8. That the whole Christian world are Tritheists. That the 
Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, 
&c. all worship three Gods I For the whole are Trinitarians : 
and he has said again and again, that « Trinitarianism and 
Tritheism are only different names for the same thing." And 
again,—" it is downright Tritheism," &c. (See page 394.) 
Thus he has excommunicated not only the «« Calvinistic" 
churches, but those which have a tincture of Arminianism. 

The articles of the Episcopalian and Methodist churches, are 
on this subject precisely the same with those of the Presbyte- 
rian and Baptist churches. 

Yourselves therefore being judges, we and you do not wor- 
ship the same object. Between you and us, according to your 
own testimony, there is a " great gulf fixed"—- we are of differ- 
ent religions ! 

Now as you have long known our sentiments on these sub- 
jects, (for unlike yourselves, we publish our doctrines to the 
world,) you must have always regarded us as Tritheists. and of 
course not Christians. It follows, therefore, that you have ne- 
ver looked upon us as Christian churches at all, but as you once 
expresed it : « an apostatized church !" 

Let us hear no more therefore of your «f charity" for us, for 
it now T appears you never had any I — neither expect any fellow- 
shipfrom us ; for though not Tritheists, we believe ourselves to be 
just as far off as you think we are. In other words, we are of a 
different religion, have a different God, a different Saviour, and 
a totally different way of Salvation ! 

DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

Secondly; that we and you have a different Saviour, will 
appear from noticing your remarks on the divinity of Christ 
Among the things which show that he holds to a mere human 
Saviour, 



456 

1. He says that Christ's power was all " delegated." I had 
quoted the Saviour's declaration, John x. 18, « 1 lay down my 
life of myself. I have power to lay it down, and power to take 
it again." "Amicus" says (page 434,) he did not lay it down "of 
himself," but by power " given" to him, " delegated" to him from 
God ! As if divine power could be delegated ! If by " delegation" 
he means no more than that God wrought by Jesus as an instru- 
ment, then Jesus was no more divine than Peter or Paid, to 
whom God " delegated" power equally great. But if, as you pro- 
bably mean, his divinity was delegated, then, either the Father 
annihilated Himself to make Christ divine, or we have two Gods.'.' 
the one Original — the other originated — delegated— made!!.' 

2. His " Christ," it appears, is not a "person,'' but a "name;" 
and his " divinity of Christ," of which he has boasted so much, 
turns out to be not the divinity of a person but a name. He 
absolutely rejects and ridicules the idea of Jesus of Nazareth 
being a "divine person," and understands Isa. vii. 14, and ix. 
6, as not asserting the divinity of the person of Jesus, but the 
divinity of his name! A most sage distinction ! — a most " ra- 
tional" way of getting over a " mystery !" As if the name of 
a person when rightly given (as it was in this ease, being by di- 
vine direction,) was not designative of his person, and descrip- 
tive of his character ! 

As this is a favourite quibble of your Society, I will bestow 
upon it more notice than it deserves. 

First, let us look again at the text, Isa. ix. 6, " Unto us a 
child is born, unto us a Son is given," — a person, a being, is 
here spoken of, not a mere name; — " and the government shall 
be upon his shoulder," — not on the shoulder of a name, but of a 
person — " his shoulder ;" — " And his name (not the name of his 
name) shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, 
the everlasting Father, (literally the Father of eternity,) the 
Prince of Peace." Any one the least acquainted with the style of 
Scripture, knows that " to be called" in such a connection, is the 
same as " to be." The name is intended to express the charac- 
ter of the person; and therefore, the above phrase is equivalent 
to saying : " this person who shall be born, shall be the mighty 
God, the Father of eternity, the Prince of Peace !" 

Secondly ; compare other examples, Gen. xvii. 5 : " Thy 
name shall be Abraham, (i. e. father of a multitude) for a fa- 
ther of many nations have I made thee.' 9 

Quere, was his name the <• father of nations," or was Abra- 
ham himself the " father" here spoken of? 

Again ; Gen. xxxii. 28 : " And he said, thy name shall be 
no more Jacob, but Israel, (Prince of God,) for as a Prince hast 
thou power with God and with man, and hast prevailed." Quere, 



457 

was not Jacob himself this « Prince," — or was nothing but his 
name «* Prince V 9 

Again ; it is said of Solomon, 2 Sam. xii. 25 : « And the 
Xorrf Jo^ecZ /aim, and he called his name Jedediah," (beloved of 
the Lord.) Quere, was not Solomon himself beloved ? 

Again ; Isaiah xlii. 8 : si \ am Jehovah, (the self-existent, 
eternal, and unchangeable God,) that is my name." Quere, is 
not the Deity himself « self-existent and eternal l" — or do these 
attributes belong only to his name P" 

In view of all these parallel passages, let the candid reader 
judge whether Christ's name, or Christ himself is the "mighty 
God I r 

But you object : (t name signifies power, and these passages 
mean no more than that divine power shall manifest itself in 
him." Answer : If his exercising divine power, was the only 
thing that rendered him " divine," then Peter and Paul were 
also divine, for they were gifted with divine power, as appears 
by their miracles. So that you hold, as I have before stated, 
the divinity of Jesus, no more than the divinity of his Apos- 
tles ! You look upon Jesus, in all except his name, as a mere 
man; and I have little doubt many of you would join with an 
eminent lady of j r our society in this borough, in saying, that 
•< George Fox was as good a man as Jesus Christ ! ! !" 

It therefore appears, that the Saviour you preach, is a Sa- 
viour only in name — the divinity of Christ, is the divinity of a 
name — and the object of your trust, is a mere name! ! 

3. (i God in Christ is the true and exclusive divinity of Christ. 99 
This is a favourite expression of yours. To which [ might an- 
swer : 6i God in Moses, is the true divinity of Moses'' 9 — " God in 
Paul, is the true divinity of Paul ! I /" If there was no personal 
union of the divine and human natures in one person in Jesus, 
then Moses and many others, are as divine as the- Son of Mary. 

4. You make it as a very important distinction, that « It is 
not said He shall be called, but his name shall be called the 
Mighty God." There is no difference in the meaning of the 
terms. See Luke i. 60, 63. But contrary to his assertion, it 
is expressly said : Jer. xxiii. 6 ; " He shall be called the LORD 
(Jehovah) our righteousness." According to your own impli- 
ed admission, therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person ! 

h. You seem to think, that « power" is the only attribute of 
God employed in our salvation. And all you want of a Saviour, 
is <* power" to bring « your will into subjection to the divine 
will," to work in you a " substantial righteousness of heart 
and life." If so, what need was there of his incarnation, his 
obedience, sufferings and death ! He was as almighty before as 
he is now. But whatever you feel* Christians feel their need 
58 



4£8 

not only of power to change their hearts, hut of an atonement to 
deliver them from the curse of the law, and an obedience, or a 
righteousness to entitle them to life. They feel their need of 
Christ as a Friest, as well as a King, 

In short, you hold the « divinity of Christ," just as you do 
* s Baptism" and the « Lord's Supper," in a sense which amounts 
to a real and total rejection of the Christian doctrine ! ! 

On this subject the Christian public will no longer be deceiv- 
ed, by any plausible abuse of Scripture terms, or equivocations 
you may use. 

I now proceed to notice his remarks on the doctrine of 

ATONEMENT. 

1. He admits, as the Bible compels him, that we are to he 
saved by the " righteousness of Christ." This seems fair and 
promising ! But take care, lest this «« righteousness" of Christ 
turn out, like the " divinity of Christ," to be a mere abuse of 
terms. What does he mean by this phrase ? Hear ! *« A real 
substantial righteousness of heart and life was and is the only 
righteousness of Christ ! ! !" This is really another name 
for our personal righteousness, and is only Pharisaism baptiztd 
with a Christian name. You see, Christians, how little he 
makes of Christ's sufferings, and death, and active obedience, 
which we view as an essential part of that 6i righteousness" by 
which we are to be justified. You see how little they make of 
the « cross" in which the Apostle gloried, Gal. vi. 14; and of 
that " blood," without which there is «« no remission of sins." 
Heb. ix. 22 ; and of that " death" which was a « ransom for 
many." Matt. xxii. 28. All they want of him, is some assistance 
in conquering their evil natures, and producing in them a *« sub- 
stantial righteousness of heart and life." They need no atone- 
ment, using this word in its proper sense, as meaning a satisfac- 
tion, an expiatory price, 

2. Speaking of the atonement, he says : « Atonement" and 
«« reconciliation" mean the same thing, are synonymous terms. 
« The rebellious will of man must be brought into subjection to 
the will of God, before the Gospel atonement can possibly b& 
made!!!" Behold, then, Christian brethren, the mistake un- 
der which the whole Christian world has always laboured! They 
have been in the habit of regarding the DEATH OF CHRIST 
as the GREAT ATONEMENT offered for the sins of the 
world ! But here we are taught that there is no such atonement — 
that the only atonement was not made on Calvary, but is made 
in our hearts, by a " subjecting of our wills to the divine will," 
and by a "substantial righteousness of heart and life ! ! !" The 
only « atonement" in which the Friends believe, consists in a 



*59 

moral life, with a part of the merit of which they compliment 
the Deity ! 

Thus you reduce to a mere name, the DIVINITY and 
ATONEMENT of Jesus Christ, and treat with contempt two 

ESSENTIAL, FUNDAMENTAL and DISTINGUISHING doctrines of 

Christianity ! PAUL. 



Sixth-day, Uth mo. 29, 1822i 

LETTER XL. 

" Not the hearers of the law are just before Qod> but the doers of 
the law shall be justified." Rom. ii. 13. 

When « Paul" commenced his series of Letters to the Re- 
ligious Society of Friends, it might be supposed he meant them 
as an invitation to embrace the Calvinistic scheme. When, 
by a course of reasoning, he attempted to sustain his views, it 
may be taken for granted, that he supposed that scheme a ra- 
tional one. Amicus believed it was both irrational and unscrip- 
tural — absurd in theory, and wholly repugnant to the plain and 
decided testimony of the inspired penmen. To try this point 
has been the duty of Amicus, not only to excuse ourselves for 
rejecting it, but for the purpose of bringing into view doctrines 
more worthy of the Divine character — doctrines which demand 
the assent of our reason, and recommend themselves by their 
purity, their simplicity, their excellence ; — doctrines calculat- 
ed to manifest the unbounded love of God to his rational family, 
and adapted to every capacity, as the only means of happiness 
in this world, and of eternal felicity in the world to come. 

This point has now been tested $ and I think the most scep- 
tical, the most prejudiced (in the moment of cool reflection) 
must admit, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained and 
enforced by my opponent, is irrational, absurd, arid grossly Mas* 
phemous ! ! I I am aware that many who are called Trinitari- 
ans, have views of this subject that widely differ from « Paul's/' 
and approach much nearer the standard of Scripture truth. 
Many of these, I have heard express themselves, with as much 
disgust at the opinions of my opponent, as ever I have done ; 
and some of them, in friendly conference on the subject, have 
differed from me in very little, except the terms they used. 
The truth is, as expressed by Amicus, in his first Letter on this 
point : " there is no commonly received doctrine of the Trinity ; ,, ~ 
I mean, that among those, who, with the strongest intel- 
lectual powers — the greatest learning — and largest opportu* 



£60 

nity of conference with religious characters, have thought and 
wrote on this subject, there is the greatest variety and contra- 
riety of opinion — the greatest jarring and confusion ! ! ! 

Now this is not at all wonderful, when we consider, that this 
doctrine originated in a departure from the spirit and language 
of the holy penmen — in a desertion of that standard, which these 
sectaries acknowledge as " the only ifijallible rule ! I .'" For, as 
Dr. Taylor has said : « he that goes about to speak of a Trinity, 
and does it by words and names of man's invention, and by the 
distinctions of the schools, if he only talk of essences, and exis- 
tences, hypostases and personalities, distinctions without differ- 
ence, priority in co-equalities, and unity in pluralities, he may 
amuse himself, and build tabernacles in his head, and talk some- 
thing, but he knows not what J ! /" Serm. John vii. 17. 

That this has been the awkward situation of my poor bewil- 
dered opponent, has been seen by his own papers. He has 
virtually confessed that he does not understand his subject. — 
He has been " talking something but he knows not what." — 
Unhappily for his cause he thought otherwise, and attempting 
to be « wise above that which is written," he has run into the 
grossest errors that have appeared in print for two hundred 
years ! — He has published to the world, in characters not to be 
obliterated, that God the Creator of the world was born 
four thousand years after the Creation ! ! !— He has 
told us that " Jehovah, the author of life, was killed !!!" 
Such conclusions, offered to the attention of reflecting men, 
must be productive of deep felt disgust, and tend to precipitate 
the downfall of a doctrine, whose doom is sealed, that « it shall 
surely die !" 

The term " person," and its derivatives, f< Paul" uses in 
one of his Letters more than forty times I He says : « the 
question between Unitarians and Christians is, whether the 
union of the human nature with the Divine nature, was so per- 
fect, as to constitute but one person." — Now can "Paul" tell 
us what he means by the term " person ?" — « Boethius," « Ac- 
quinas." " Calvin," « Archbishop Usher," « Bishop Stilling- 
fleet," « John Locke," « Laurentius," "Valla," " Wallis," and 
*« Sherlock," all attempt to define it, and scarcely two of them 
agree. Some of them define it philosophically, and some with 
reference to the doctrine of saint Athanasius. Of the latter, 
some are unequivocally TRITHEISTS, and some SABEL- 
L1ANS. But Dr. Miller, who published his notions on the 
subject about a year ago, is so candid as to say : 6t If it be 
asked what kind of distinction is that which is expressed by 
the word person ? We frankly answ T er we do not know ! 1 /" 
Perhaps, however, my sagacious opponent, more accute than 



*61 

the learned doctor, Las scented out its meaning ! — If so, and he 
would oblige us by defining it, perhaps we might answer the 
question between the Christians and the Unitarians ! If he 
cannot define it, then, according to his own acknowledgment, 
the question will he : "Whether the union of' the two natures was 
so perfect as to constitute something, we know not what / / /" 
Now I hope « Paul" will be so kind as either to define this 
mysterious word, or, like Dr. Miller, frankly to tell us, he does 
not know its meaning. 

But though my opponent has, in his elaborate xxxixth Let- 
ter, used this word and its derivations more than forty times, 
yet the sacred writers have never used it once, as applicable to 
our Saviour ! ! ! What clearer proof can we desire, that it and 
the doctrine it inculcates, are wholly foreign to the doctrine of 
the Gospel ? What better evidence can we have, that the scheme 
it supports, is the invention of men? — the legitimate fruit of 
apostacy from Christ, and justly to be ranked among the con- 
trivances of antichrist, to draw away the mind from the purity 
and simplicity of the Christian faith ? 

Thus we have it in evidence, that the Trinitarian scheme 
is unscriptural and irrational ! I am however aware, that a 
writer who only points out the errors of any system, leaves at 
least half his work undone ! and therefore, I have been careful 
in the course of this discussion, not only to prove the absurdi- 
ty of my opponent's scheme, but by frequent reference to the 
inspired writings, and by plain deductions from them, to shew, 
that the Society I advocate, have embraced such views and opi- 
nions of the Divine nature, as are closely in accordance with 
those of the sacred writers ! 

As the doctrine of the Trinity in connection with the atone- 
ment, embraces the Calvinistic plan of salvation, from which 
we essentially differ, it will, I presume, be interesting to the 
candid inquirer after truth, to see our views contrasted. In one 
great point we all agree, that Christ is the only means of 
salvation," "there is no other name under heaven, given 
among men, whereby we must be saved," Acts iv. 12. In the 
mode by which the great work of man's redemption is effected, 
lies the difference between us ! 

In my last I gave our views of the origin, nature, and effects 
of sin, In my opponent's reply he does not attempt to con- 
trovert my statements on this point. I presume therefore we 
do not differ on it. — Sin is a taint, a disease of the soul, aris- 
ing from disobedience to the revealed will of God. It separates 
man from God, the source of divine life and light. It is, as the 
Apostle describes it, <« a middle wall of partition between the 
soul and its Creator," Eph. ii. 14. 



462 

Now in order that sinners may experience the only Gospel 
atonement, we believe ihis «♦ middle wall of partion," must be 
« broken down" — that God never can be reconciled to man, 
whilst he is in a state of sin. " For whosoever committeth sin, 
is the servant of sin," John viii. 34. « And his servants ye are 
to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or obedience unto 
righteousness," Rom. vi. 16 : « He that committeth sin is of the 
devil," — and "for this purpose the Son of God was manifested 
that he might destroy the works of the devil,' 9 1 John iii. 8. 

Here we see in plain Scripture language, that the very pur- 
pose of Christ's coming, was to « destroy the works of the De- 
vil" — to reconcile us to God, to « make both one," not by a no- 
minal atonement or imputative righteousness, but by actually 
«« breaking down the middle wall of partition between us." — 
No man, nor all the power of men and angels, can break down 
this wall. — Unless divine power interpose, the sinner is lost — the 
«' wall" must remain an everlasting barrier between God and 
his soul ! — This wall is sin — *< the work of the devil" — the fruit 
or effect of disobedience ; and Christ, who is " God manifest 
in the flesh," is the only power that can destroy it, and so, make 
an effectual atonement between the soul and the source of di- 
vine purity ! 

Now the very object of Christ's coming is to communicate 
this power to the soul ; and by a <* new birth" of the divine na- 
ture, to lay the Gospel « axe to the root of the corrupt tree !" — 
This was the forerunner's first annunciation of the Gospel that 
came by Jesus Christ— and his second was similar in its na- 
ture — « He [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and 
with fire ; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly 
purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but the 
chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Luke iii. 9. 16, 
17. But this, fellow Christians, is not easy work to the sin- 
ner — he does not like this fire-work — he does not relish the idea 
of burning his chaff — he does not like to part with his beloved 
sins — he does not desire an atonement on these conditions ! ! ! 
And therefore, ( < the whole Christian world," the whole world 
of carnal Christians of every religious society , prefer an « im- 
putative righteousness 9 ' — prefer a smooth easy road to heaven — 
'« have been in the habit of regarding the death of Christ" — the 
sufferings of another, more than seventeen hundred years before 
they were born, " as the Great Atonement" — as having paid 
the price of their sins, as having made satisfaction for them, and 
so, reversing the order of the Gospel 9 they have found out a way 
of reconciling the purity of God with the filthiness of a sinner— 
a way of mixing light and darkness together, away of bringing 
Christ into concord with BeliaUI! 



46$ 

It is no wonder that this plan of salvation, so congenial to the 
corrupt inclinations of sinful men, has so many advocates ! It 
is no wonder that the world, under such teaching, should pre- 
sent a scene of selfishness and corruption — that (t the strong 
man armed," with all his defilement, should keep possession of 
the house — that the religion of the Scribes and Pharisees should 
be the religion of Christendom ! ! ! 

My opponent seems much offended that I said : « the righ- 
teousness of Christ was and is a real substantial righteousness 
in the heart and life !" — he thinks this « an abuse of terms."—-* 
Now what could it be ? — Was it an unreal, substantial righte- 
ousness ? It has been already proved, from « Paul's own state- 
ments, that the three persons that compose his Deity, are 
« unreal and unsubstantial." See Amicus' xxxivth Letter, p. 
3(54. My opponent is therefore quite consistent in supposing, 
the rightheousness of one of his unreal unsubstantial persons, is 
imaginary/!! — an imputative righteousness must necessarily be 
unreal and unsubstantial !!! 

Calvin teaches, that men are justified, « not by infusing righte- 
ousness into them," not by becoming really righteous, •« but by 
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous ; not for 
any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but by imputing 
to them the obedience of Christ for their whole and sole righte- 
ousness ! ! !" Thus the righteousness of Christ is made a kind 
of a cloak, to cover the filthy sinner, when nothing has been 
" wrought in him, or done by him," but the works of sin and 
iniquity ! Again: " Christ by his obedience and death, did ful- 
ly discharge the debt of all thus justified $ and by undergoing 
in their stead, the penalty due unto them, did make a proper 
and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf." Thus, 
the debt being paid, these sinners under a cloak, may go on in 
their sins, and God will accept them, and justify them because 
of the cloak they wear !!! 

This conclusion is supported, not only by the general con- 
duct of most Christian professors, but by other parts of Calvin's 
scheme: for he tells us, that " those" who have once put on this 
cloak, "never can fall from a state of justification, although, 
by their sins, they may fall under God's displeasure ! ! !" Thus, 
though God has expressly said : « I will not justify the wicked." 
Exod. xxiii. 7.— this doctrine contradicts him ! ! ! It teaches 
us, that men may be under God's displeasure because of their 
wickedness, and yet be justified by him at the same time !— 
that they may stand in a two- fold character — atonce the servants 
of sin, and the servants of God ! ! !" It renders a man justified 
and condemned, alive and dead, redeemed and not redeemed at 
the same instant \ the former, by an imputative righteousness* 



l6if 

the latter, by a ** personal unrighteousness." — The doctrine is 
absurd ! 

But it is not only absurd, it is highly dangerous. « It flat- 
ters men, while subject to the world's lusts, with a state of jus- 
tification, and thereby invalidates the very end of Christ's 
appearance, which was «to destroy the works of the devil," 
and to « take away sin." 

That there is but one kind of righteousness, by which we 
can be saved, is abundantly manifest throughout the Holy 
Scriptures, and this is « a real substantial righteousness of the 
heart and life." It is often called by the sacred penmen, «the 
righteousness of God," — because God is its author. Rom. iii. 5, 
21, 22, &c. &c. It is called " the righteousness of faith," Rom. 
iv. 13, because it is produced by obedience to the word of God, 
nigh in the heart by faith. See Rom. x. 6, 7, 8. It has also 
many other appellations in Scripture, but all meaning the same 
thing. 

There is also another kind of righteousness, described by the 
inspired penmen, called « the righteousness which is of the 
Law." Rom. ii. 26. — viii. 4. — x. 5. Matt. v. 20. The former 
is the righteousness of the true Christian, the Jew inward; 
*« whose circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in 
the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." Rom. ii. 29. It 
is produced by his submission to the operation of the spirit of 
Christ in the soul, whereby he experiences repentance from 
sin, his own will " brought into subjection to the will of God," 
and his whole life and conversation made conformable to the 
holy pattern of his Lord. In this way sin comes to be mortified, 
the partition wall to be broken down, the dead raised, and the 
true Gospel atonement to be experienced. This is "THE 
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST." The latter is a right- 
eousness much more common in the world ! It is a righteous- 
ness, « baptized indeed with a Christian name," but which is 
nothing more than « the righteousness of the Pharisee !" It 
is an ** imputative righteousness" which a man can possess in 
an unsanctified and corrupt state ! It is a very accommodating 
kind of righteousness, it will live on good terms with sin, and 
in familiarity with iniquity ! It is a kind of cloak, that is 
used to cover the outside, while the inside is defiled with gross 
impurity ! It is « like whited sepulchres, which indeed appear 
beautiful outward, but within are full of dead men's bones and 
all manner of uncleanness !" Matt, xxiii. 27. It blows a trum- 
pet when it gives an alms ! It makes long prayers to be seen 
of men ! It compasseth sea and land to make one proselyte, 
and then makes him two-fold more the child of hell than he was 
before ! — It tythes mint, annise, and cummin, and neglects the 



465 

weightier matters of the Law, judgment, merdy, and faith !"— * 
It binds heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lays them 
on men's shoulders, but will do nothing to remove them ! It 
makes broad the phylactery, and enlarges the border of the 
garment ! — It loves the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief 
seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and 
to be called of men rabbi, rabbi! — It makes a great noise 
about religion, and loves religious titles ! — In fine, it is a righte- 
ousness produced by the will of man without the humbling pu- 
rifying influence of God's Holy Spirit! ! ! 

The Apostle Paul, in the third chapter to the Philippians, 
gives us a very accurate idea of these two kinds of righteous- 
ness. He had fully experienced both of them. He had had a the- 
ological education, and was an orthodox Pharisee ! But what 
does he say of this state ? He was a zealous professor, but 
how did his zeal influence him r « Concerning zeal, persecut- 
ing the church ;" " concerning the righteousness of the Law, 
blameless !" It appears then, that this righteousness did not 
interfere with a persecuting spirit ! This legal formal righte- 
ousness, has always been of a persecuting species! — When it 
has temporal power, it uses it — when it has none, it cries 
« heretic," •• infidel," &c. But how was it with him, after he 
had been changed by the power of the Holy Spirit ? Then he 
could say : <« 1 count all things loss for the excellency of the 
knowledge of Christ, that I may win him, and be found in him, 
not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but 
the righteousness which is of God* byjaith: That I may know 
him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his 
sufferings — being made comformable to his death." — Here 
Paul gives demonstrative evidence, that he understood the 
nature of « Christ's righteousness," and the way in which the 
Christian can only be benefitted by the death of Christ — that 
is, by being made conformable to it ! 

Before I close this Letter, I will notice a few of « Paul's'* 
remarks, that for want of room have not yet been reviewed. — 
He says : " You use the term « Christ,' to signify a nature, an 
influence from God." The inaccuracy of this statement must 
be obvious to all who have read my Letters. Me use this term 
just as the Aposties used it, to signify « God manifest in the 
flesh," « God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself !" 
If the term were used as my opponent uses it, "to signify God 
and man in two distinct natures, but oi%e person forever," it 
would make the Apostles as absurd theologians as the Cal- 
vinists ! When the Apostle said : ** I am crucified with Christ, 9 * 
we must suppose he was crucified on an outward cross with 
Christ !— ■ When he said : « Nevertheless Hive, yet not I> but 
59 



*6G 

Christ liveth in me" we must suppose, that the body that was 
burn of the virgin Mary , lived in tarn 111 — Again; when lie said : 
« Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith — know ye 
not, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates/ 9 
we must understand that believers are reprobates, unless the 
person of Jesus of Nazareth is in thtm! i could easily quote 
fifty passages of this sort, to show, that the inspired penmen 
held no such carnal notions ! but it is needless 5 " Paul's" 
scheme cannot be supported without a perversion of almost 
every page of the New 7 Testament ! ! ! 

Again ; '< you may say every thing of Moses which you have 
said of Christ." What a desperate state must my poor oppo- 
nent be in, when he can descend so low as to make such asser- 
tions ! Did 1 ever say of Moses, or the Prophets, or the Apos- 
tles, that they were " Emmanuel God with us" — «* God manifest 
in the flesh" — «« the Saviour of the world" — the only means of 
salvation ?" — Does « Paul" think, like the ancient heretics, 
that a departure from truth is lawful in defence of his dogmas? 
Again ; •« you deny that Christ is come in the flesh ! ! !" This 
might be much more truly said of my opponent, who affirms, 
that " the two distinct natures are one person forever ; — that 
Christ is flesh, not come in the Jiesh ! ! ! I have said over and 
over, that Christ is «« God manifest in the flesh ! ! !" 

In this way I could easily refute his various calumnies, but 
they are not worth the time ! 

In his last Letter, « Paul" seems much disturbed, that our 
members are willing to die without the aid of a priest! He 
finds, in a Philadelphia paper, an account of the last illness and 
death of a man, who, for many years, had been a pattern of 
piety and virtue, — an active member of civil and religious so- 
ciety, beloved wherever he was known. He finds him, in his 
dying moments, happy and comfortable — his peace made with 
God, and his mind easy. He finds him, like Addison, express- 
ing his religious concern for survivors, and like him, showing 
them "in what peace a Christian can die!" — He finds him 
full of hope of a happy immortality; and wonderful to relate — 
all this is a proof that he was no Christian ! ! I Now, I suppose, 
if, like some hardened sinner, roused by his fears, he had re- 
counted his sins, with all the loquacity of a trembling hypocrite, 
and had made great professions of repentance, it would have 
been a great honour to any religious society to publish it ! ! ! 

Upon « Paul's" hypothesis, how disgraceful it was for the 
Apostle, on leaving the world, « not to say a syllable of re- 
pentance for sin, or a change of heart;" — « not to give a sin- 
gle intimation that he felt himself a sinner; 1 ' — instead of which, 
<* proclaiming his rectitude," « seeming to enter heaven in all 



*67 

the majesty of merit, and taking eternal glory as it were by 
right"-^' I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, 
I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a 
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, 
shall give me at that day, and not unto me only, but unto all 
them that love his appearing." 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8. 

« Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may 
have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the 
gates into the city." Rev. xxii. 14. AMICUS. 



Friday, December 6, 1822. 

LETTER XLI. 

ON THE ATONEMENT. 

— « Then Christ is dead in vain." Gal. ii. 21. 

The grand question to be decided by this controversy, was, 
** whether there he an essential difference in doctrine between 
your Society and the Christian world?" A question upon which 
there can be no longer any doubt. Besides denying the su- 
preme authority of the Bible as a rule of faith ; rejecting with 
contempt the doctrine of the Trinity — the divinity of Jesus as a 
distinct person from the Father, and ridiculing the atonement! 
all which are as essential to Christianity as a foundation to a 
building; — you have, in your last, confessed that from "the 
plan of salvation, which embraces the doctrine of the Trinity, 
in connection with the atonement," — a plan, held, as you after- 
wards acknowledge, by the « whole Christian world," you 
"essentially differ ! I" Thus the grand object of this contro- 
versy is attained ! You have been convicted, at the bar of the 
Christian public, on the most unequivocal testimony, even your 
own confession, of the main charge which I have brought ; — the 
charge of holding Anti christian sentiments, — being of an 
« essentially different" religion from the Christian church ! 

Whether you or the Christian world are right, is another 
question, which I shall leave to others to discuss. To prove the 
truth of Christianity, or even to give a thorough systematic 
view of orthodox doctrines, has been with me a secondary object. 
If any, therefore, have complained of my not entering more 
deeply into the doctrine of the Trinity, divinity of Christ, &c. 
and not noticing all the flimsy arguments of my opponent, they 
mistook the object of this controversy. Almost my only object 
was to prove you heretics/ — to warn my Christian brethren 



46S 

against the contaminating influence of your doctrines. Hence 
my chief design has been to draw you out, and to obtain a con- 
fession of your sentiments. Hence I have gone no further into 
any subject than was necessary to conceal my object, to pre- 
serve respectability, and to arm the ignorant and unwary. So 
far, I have gained all 1 wished, and more than I anticipated ! 

The subject of atonement, I have as yet hardly touched. — To 
this, therefore, I shall devote the present number, after noticing 
two or three of your occasional remarks on 

THIS TRINITY AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

He still asserts, that « there is no commonly received doc- 
trine of the Trinity ;" — that among our writers, there is the 
« greatest contrariety of opinion, the greatest jarring and con- 
fusion !" This will be perfect news to Trinitarians. They are 
aware of differences upon other points, but I defy *« Amicus" to 
show any " variety" in this. The individuals with whom 
« Amicus" says he has conversed, and who " expressed dis- 
gust" at the idea of three persons in the Godhead, cannot be- 
long to any Christian society in this or any other place, or they 
are condemned by the express language of their own creed, and 
ought in honesty to avow their change, leave a Christian so* 
ciety, and join the Unitarian ranks. 

He is much shocked at the idea of "God the Creator being 
torn four thousand years after the creation !" I would ask him, 
whether the Creator was ever incarnate ? and how far, — and 
■when ? Does not the incarnation of the Deity imply his uniting 
himself to humanity in all its stages of existence ? Or does "Ami- 
cus" hold that God was not incarnate until Jesus of Nazareth 
'was thirty years of age / Was not God in him, when at « twelve, 
years of age" he questioned the doctors in the temple, and told 
his parents he « must be about his Father's business ?" And was 
Dot God in him when he was born? If not, why was the "child" 
that was « born," the " son 9 ' that was " given," called <• Em- 
manuel," and the *« Mighty God ! !" Was Infinite Wisdom 
guilty of a misnomer? — You see, therefore, my brethren, that 
the Friends virtually deny the incarnation ! ! ! Christ " with- 
out." with them is nothing ; Christ " within," or a deceitful heart 
is every thing ! 

He is very anxious for a definition of the term "person/" — 
as if he had not already had at least a half dozen before him ! 
.Language will not permit a perfect definition of what we cannot 
perfectly comprehend; but in p. 318, he has quoted, or pre- 
tended to quote several definitions from Waterland, Howe, 
Owen, Pearson and Bull; either of which he may take with 
their explanation. By " person," is generally understood a 



469 

« distinct, indivisible, intelligent agent." And when we speak 
of a Trinity in the Godhead, we mean " three distinct, intelli- 
gent agents," — not so distinct, however, (mind !) not so dis- 
tinct as three men or three angels ; nor so distinct as to destroy 
unity of essence. But so s * distinct" that one has properties 
which do not belong to another, (it is the property of the first 
person to be a Father, and of the second to be a Son, &c.) — so 
distinct, that one can send, and another be sent ; one can make 
atonement to another, and intercede with another ; in short, so 
distinct as to justify the use of the personal pronouns 1, Thou, He, 
which cannot be on your principle of unity. It is a distinction, 
however, which we do not profess to comprehend, explain or 
prove farther than this, that it exists I Upon your principle, 
there can be no such thing as the Father's sending the Son ; 
the Son leaving the bosom of his Father; and the Holy Ghost 
the Comforter, being sent by the Father and the Son. There 
can be no such thing as divine atonement, intercession or medi- 
ation between the persons of the Trinity ; in short, there can 
he no such thing as the Gospel, no such thing as Christianity J 

When we speak of Christ as uniting divinity and humanity 
in one person, we mean (as well as words can express the mys- 
tery,) that his divinity and humanity were so closely united as to 
form but one " distinct indivisible intelligent agent," so that without 
his humanity he would not be *« Christ," and without his divi- 
nity he would not be « Christ " — Without your body you would 
not be a man ; without your soul you would not be a man ; yet 
when body and soul are united, you form but one man, one 
« distinct indivisible intelligent agent." 

Upon your principle, Christ was two persons, or two « dis- 
tinct intelligent agents ;" as man he was one agent, — as God he 
was another! But we hold to such an indivisible union of di- 
vinity and humanity, that his every action, and every suffering, 
was the action or suffering of the same person, or same <* intel- 
gent agent." We are not afraid therefore to say, . that *« the 
Mighty God, (meaning the second person of the Trinity,) was 
once a child," Isa. ix. 6. t( that God, the Prince of life was kil- 
led," Acts iii. 15. Or that he who was born of the virgin Mary 
is « King of kings and Lord of lords," Rev. xix. 16. Because 
these things are not spoken of two persons, but of one and the 
same person! Your doctrine is a denial of the real divinity of 
Christ 

I now proceed to offer some remarks on the doctrine of 

ATONEMENT. 

By " atonement" I mean a satisfaction for sin. And by the 
atonement in this controversy, I mean ** that infinite satisfaction 



1 *7i> 

which Jesus Christ rendered to God the Father for the sins of his 
people." 

This doctrine of atonement (i Amicus" has explicit]}' denied. 
He has said, that the « only Gospel -atonement" is made within 
us : — that the great «* object of Christ's coming, was to commu- 
nicate power to the soul" to overcome sin ;— that the way adopt- 
ed by the " whole Christian world, who have been in the habit 
of regarding the death of Christ as the great atonement, as 
having paid the price of their sins, and made satisfaction for 
them," is «« a way of mixing light with darkness, and bringing 
Christ into concord with Belial /" 

Now that such an atonement, such a satisfaction as he here 
reprobates, is essential to salvation, and has actually been 
made, I prove, 

1. Because otherwise the law of God which we have broken 
is not good. If "the Law is holy and the commandment holy, 
and just, and good," as is expressly asserted, Rom. vii. 1*2, then 
it ought to be satisfied and executed. If the Law be good its 
penalty is good, and ought to be inflicted on transgressors. If 
then, this penalty beset aside, the Law is dishonoured, is pro- 
nounced " not good." By denying the necessity of atonement, 
therefore, or of satisfaction to the Law, you condemn that Law ! 

2. God has no justice, if he pardon transgressors without a 
satisfaction for sin. He is the " Judge of all the earth," and if 
he ever will (( do right," he will execute his Law and demand 
full satisfaction for sin. To say that He will forgive a convicted 
criminal before his crime has been expiated by the suffering 
denounced by the Law, is to make him decide contrary to Law, 
justifying whom the Law condemns ; of course proving an unjust 
judge ! In denying the necessity of atonement, you deny the 
justice of God. 

Obj. « If justice must first be satisfied, where is the room 
for mercy ?" Answer none ; — if the criminal himself has endured 
the punishment and penalty ; — but if the judge himself provide 
a surety and a substitute, there is mercy in this provision. — 
"Now the very object of giving his Son to die in our stead, was 
that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth ! 
Rom. iii. 26. 

3. If there be no atonement, then the ceremonial law had 
no meaning ! What was the end of all the ancient sacrifices 
of lambs and doves and other innocent animals, but to shadow 
forth salvation by the death of an innocent victim ? 1 cannot 
quote the whole book of Leviticus, or I might fill this sheet with 
proof of my position. Readonly the first five chapters, and 
you will find passages of this sort : "and he (the sinner) shall 
put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be 



471 

accepted for him, to make atonement for him," Lev. i. 4. 
Again : " the priest shall make atonement for them, and it 
shall be forgiven them," iv. 20, 26, 31, 35. Again : « and the 
priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and it 
shall be forgiven him for any thing of alt that he hath done in 
trespassing therein" vi. 7. How clearly did these typical sacri- 
fices teach the ancient church, the necessity of a satisfaction 
or atonement for sin ; and that before a sinner could be par- 
doned, an innocent victim must die ! 

The ceremonial as well as the moral Law was «< a schoolmaster 
to lead sinners to Christ"— and is the first lesson to teacli them 
the doctrine of atonement. In reference to these typical sacri- 
fices, Christ is called « the iamb of God, who taketh away the 
sin of the world." John i. 29. 

4. Because it is expressly asserted, that "without shedding of 
blood there is no remission," fleb. ix. 22. Wow either there is 
no such thing as remission of sins, or an atonement has preced- 
ed. For 1. Here is an atonement, ■« shedding of blood." — 
2. Here is the necessity of atonement, « without shedding of 
Wood is no remission." 3. It is implied that after such atonement, 
there is « remission." Now 4. As Christ is now «* exalted a 
Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins " 
Acts v. 31, it follows there has been an atonement made. 

5. If there be no need of an atonement, the sufferings of 
Christ were unnecessary and unaccountable ! I suppose you will 
grant he was a sinless person, " holy, harmless, undefiled and 
separate from sinners." Why then did he suffer? — and suffer 
death, which is the "wages of sin?" — Why that agony and 
bloody sweat? — that « strong crying and tears" in the garden 
of Geth$em?me ! Was he afraid of death, — or did he suffer 
more than others ? Had he less fortitude than Peter, who was 
not only willing to be crucified, but to be crucified with his head 
downwards ! Many of his disciples went singing to the flames, 
and with joy met devouring lions ! Where was then our Sa- 
viour's fortitude? or was he enduring more than ordinary suf- 
fering? If so, why thus agonized and overwhelmed? It was 
not for his cram sins, for he had none; — but for the sins of his 
people. He himself explains the cause of his agonies on that 
awful night : " this is my body broken for you ; this is my blood 
shed for many, for the remission of sins." Or as he had 
said before, Matt. xx. 28 : " The son of man is come to give 
his life a RANSOM for many." If there be no need of an 
atonement, then what the Apostle shuddered to think of is true : 

" CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN !" Gal. II, 21. 

6. You entirely annul his office of a PRIEST. The Saviour 
promised to the world, was to bear a throe-fold office of a Pro- 






472 

phet, of a Priest and of a King. You acknowledge him (in 
part) as a Prophet, sent to be a " light" to the world ; and as 
a King, you profess to look to him, to »« subject your wills to his 
will." But if yon deny his atonement, you deny his priestly 
office altogether. That he was a Priest is evident, from Heb. 
viii. 1. : " We have an High Priest who is set on the right hand 
of the Majesty in the heavens." Now the office of a priest is 
to offer a sacrifice for sin, and make intercession for sinners. As 
it is written : *< Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and 
sacrifices: Wherefore, it is necessary that this man, (Jesus 
Christ) have somewhat also to offer." viii. 3. But what did he 
offer? " But Christ being come an High Priest of good things 
to come, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
Mood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us." ix. 11, 12. And <« having an un- 
changeable priesthood," he is " able to save to the uttermost 
all who come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make 
intercession for them." vii 25. Thus, by denying the atone- 
ment, you annul the Saviour's office of a Priest, and forget his 
chief object in visiting this world. 

7. The reality of an atonement is proved by all those passa- 
ges which speak of his dying for us : Rom. v. 6, 8. ** In due 
time Christ died for the ungodly ;" and " while we were yet sin- 
ners Christ died for us." To die for a person in these passages, 
is to die in his stead, that he may not die. Thus in the 7th 
verse : " Scarcely/or a righteous man will one die," i. e. to save 
a righteous man from death. His dying for us, therefore, proves 
a substitution, a vicarious atonement. 

8. The \\\\d chapter of Isaiah, proves an atonement, verse 6 •, 
" He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for 
our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; 
and by his stripes are we healed. All we like sheep had gone/ 
astray, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. For the 
transgression of my people was he stricken." If these passa- 
ges do not prove that the object of Christ's sufferings was to 
atone for our sins, the doctrine cannot be taught in words. 

9. Those passages which speak of his purchasing and redeem- 
ing us, prove an atonement, 1 Cor. vi. 20 : " Ye are bought 
with a price." Acts xx. 28 : " He purchased the church with 
his own blood." 1 Pet. i. 18 : 6i Forasmuch as ye know that 
ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." Mat. xx. 28. «< The 
Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many." And 
the whole church in heaven acknowledges, « Thou wast slain 
and hast redeemed us to God by thy Wood."— -Note 1. Here is a 
redemption, a ransom, a price which Christ paid for us. 3. That 



ransom or price was his blood. And yet you deny an Atone 
ment ! 

10. His bearing our sins, proves an atonement. Isaiah liii. 
11, 12 : « He shall bear their iniquities;" — and again : " he bare 
the sin of many." Which is echoed by the Apostle Peter : 
" Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 
1 Peter ii. 2i<. Objection : « Christ bears away our sins, by re- 
moving them, by his Spirit, from our hearts. 39 Answer: No; 
for 1. To bear is not to « bear away," but to suffer the pun- 
ishment due to sin. 2. Note how he bears our sins, not in our 
hearts, but « in his own body." 3. The place and time in which 
he bears our sins, — not hereafter, but 6i on the tree" of crucifix* 
ion — that is : « eighteen hundred years ago." 

11. His being made sin for us, proves an atonement, 2 Cor„ 
v. 21 : " He who knew no sin was made sin (or a sin offering) 
for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 

Here every word is full of meaning. Note 1. His personal in- 
nocence,- <* he knew no sin." 2. He was treated as a sinner; 
« he was made sin." 3. His substitution in our stead ; « he 
was made sin for us." 4. His death is the means of our righte- 
ousness, «that we might be made the righteousness of God in 
him." He that can get over this without admitting an atone- 
ment, must be a good torturer of Scripture ! 

12. Our being cleansed by his blood, is another proof of an 
atonement, 1 John i. 7 : *« The blood of Jesus Christ his Son 
cleanseth us from all sin." Rev. i. 5 : « Unto Him that loved us 
and washed us from our sins in his own blood." And vii. 14 ; 
" These are they who have washed their robes and made them 
white in the blood of the Lamb." The « blood of the Lamb" is 
the atonement. 

13. His being made a curse for us, is another argument ; Gal. 
iii. 13 : 6i Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being 
made a curse for usS* Note 1. We were under a curse, *< the 
curse of the Law," 2. Christ hath removed this curse, « hath 
redeemed us." 3. The manner in which this curse was remov- 
ed, — not by "subjecting our wills," or « working in us a sub- 
stantial righteousness of heart and life," but by being "made 
a curse for us." And if you say this curse is ytt to be borne when 
we are converted ; I answer, the same text tells you it was 
borne when he was " hanging on the tree." 

14. That a sacrifice for sin is essential to salvation, proves the 
necessity of atonement. It is given as a reason why certain 
sinners cannot be saved, that *« there remaineth no more sacri- 
fice for sin." Heb. x. 26. Now, if a sacrifice for sin be not 

essential to salvation, where is the force of this passage? 

15. Our salvation is attributed to Christ's once offering up 

60 



474 

himself in sacrifice. Read Hebrews ix. and x. : « Now in the 
end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacri- 
fice of himself;" and again : " Christ was once offered to bear 
the sins of many." ix. 26, 28. And again ; Heb. x. 14 : *« By 
his one offering, he \m\\\ forever perfected them that are sanctifi- 
ed." ]Note, there is no need of his making atonement every 
year, and every day and hour, as your system supposes ; but 
by «* one offering," he hath ** forever perfected" those who be- 
lieve in him. 

16. The atonement was the first grand article of the Gospel 
which the Apostle of the Gentiles preached. 1 Cor. xv. 3 : « By 
which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what 1 preach- 
ed unto you; for I delivered unto you first or all, that which 
Ireceived 9 how that Christ died for our sins, according to the 
Scriptures" Now, what he made " first of all," you put last 
of all ! He determined « not to know any thing else than Jesus 
Christ, and him crucified;" you give every thing else the pre- 
ference ! He determined, «« God forbid that I should glory save 
in the cross of Christ;" you say : " God forbid that I should 
believe a doctrine which mixes light with darkness, and brings 
Christ into concord with Belial/" But all this is easy to account 
for: "The preaching of the CROSS is to them that perish, 
foolishness, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God 
and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor. i. IS. 

And now I appeal to the Christian community, and to those 
who love the Bible, who trust in the « great atonement," who 
hope for salvation through the blood of Christ, who mourn when 
heresy is abroad, and who long for the salvation of all man- 
kind, — ought doctrines which undermine the foundation, and 
overturn the whole fabric of Christianity, to be countenanced 
by you, as they are, in this region 1 Have you no regard to the 
doctrine of the Trinity — the divinity of Christ — the great 
atonement — and justification by faith ? Can you sit still, and 
see the Bible set aside as more deceitful than the heart? Are 
you willing to see the ordinances of Christ's house despised, 
the Sabbath day profaned, and the cause of Bible and mission- 
ary benevolence opposed ? You are sending the Gospel to the 
heathen ; you do well ; — you are labouring to enlighten the be- 
nighted in your own western territory ; you do well. But why 
neglect a large body of lost souls near home ? Why support, 
countenance and flatter a society which corrupts your children 
and friends, preaches down Christianity, and labours to diffuse 
the principles of deism ! So long as Christians call them 
* Christians," you confirm them in their delusion, you assist in 
deceiving your children, who will be less on their guard against 
those whom you profess to esteem ! What then should you do ?— 



*75 

Deny them the Christian name, until they profess Christian doc* 
trine ; labour to diffuse a knowledge of the Bible, and to excite 
a spirit of inquiry among them, — make them the subject of your 
private and your public prayers; — persuade them to attend 
Christian sanctuaries where the Gospel is preached ; — warn 
them of the errors of their teachers ; in short, make use of 
every Scriptural means to bring them to a knowledge of salva- 
tion ! 

And now, my dear friends, I have nothing against you as 
men. Your persons I love, your virtues I admire, and the sal- 
vation of your souls is my daily petition. If the Bible be true, 
you are certainly wrong ; and if there be no Saviour but Christ, 
you must be converted or lost ! PAUL* 



Sixth-day, 12th mo. 13, 1822. 

LETTER XLT. 

•'« Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
God; but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, 
and hearing they might not understand," Luke viii. 10. 

The celebrated Origen, who flourished about two hundred 
years after Christ, and whose piety and firmness in the Chris- 
tian cause were never disputed, has been accused of interpret- 
ing the Bible in a mystical manner! " It is," said he, s( taught 
that the Scriptures were in many places void of sense, if taken 
according to their literal import; and, that the true meaning 
of the sacred Writings, was to be sought in a hidden or inter- 
nal sense, according to the nature of the things treated of" How 
far the censures passed upon him, in succeeding ages, when 
the church had fallen into the trammels of a pretended ortho- 
doxy — when, in defiance of reason, the grossest and most car- 
nal interpretation of the inspired records, was adopted and 
forced upon mankind, under pain of death ; — I say, how far 
these censures were just or reasonable, it is perhaps at this; 
time impossible to determine. To his avowed enemies we are 
indebted for much of our information respecting the character 
of Origen : and the Society I advocate have good reason to 
know, how little dependance is to be placed upon the statements 
of those, who, from bigotry or superstition have ranged them- 
selves in opposition to individuals or societies that cannot con- 
form to their Creed ! One thing however is certain, that on 
the partial reformation from popery by the Protestants, those 
who stiled themselves the « orthodox," were forced, in some 



■ *y.6 

instances, to resort to a figurative interpretation of Scripture* 
in order to sustain their opinions ! Thus, when the Catholics, 
in defence of transubstantiation, urged the literal meaning of 
the text: <* This is my body," the Reformers contended, that 
it could not be taken literally — .When the former quoted the 
passage : " This is my blood of the New Testament, which is 
shed for many, for the remission of sin's," the latter justly plead 
for a figurative interpretation of it ! They boldlv declared, 
that though our Lord had positively affirmed, that the bread 
was his body, and the cup his blood, yet he only meant, they 
were so in a figurative sense ! 

Now, so Jar the Reformers followed in the footsteps of Ori- 
gen ! — so far they virtually declared, that *« the Scriptures 
were, in some places, void of sense, if taken according to their 
literal import !" And, so far every Protestant applauds their 
sentiment ! If it were necessary, I could cite many cases of 
this kind, to show, that the self-stiled orthodox, have frequent- 
ly done the very thing for which they have censured one of the 
most learned and pious men of his age — one of the most dis- 
tinguished names on the page of Ecclesiastical History! The 
truth is, and no Christian will deny it, that a spiritual or inter- 
nal sense, is intended by many passages of the Holy Scriptures; 
where, by taking them in a literal or external sense, we should 
involve our Lord himself, and the inspired penmen, in the gros- 
sest absurdity. 

Christ expressly declared to the Jews : « Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you : 
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; 
and I will raise him up at the last day: For my flesh is meat in- 
deed, and my blood is drink indeed." John vi. 53, 54, 55, On 
this passage commentators differ widely ; some explaining it 
oneway, and some another; but all (excepting perhaps the 
Roman Catholics) agree, that it must have a figurative mean- 
ing ! This being conceded, I can see no reason, why the So- 
ciety of which I am a member, have not, on the broad ground 
of Christian equality, as good a right to judge of its meaning 
as any other f — Nor, can I see any reason why those, whom 
the " mother church" called « blasphemous heretics," but who 
have now the modesty to arrogate to themselves the exclusive 
title of « orthodox Christians,'* should be invested with the sole 
privilege of expounding this text ! ! ! "Where, I would ask, 
did these presumptuous sectaries acquire this right ? No one 
who is unwilling to commit his soul for safe keeping, into the 
hands of a priest, will find any difficulty to answer this ques* 
lion ! ! ! 
But whatever authority others may have for their interpret 



477 

tation of this text, on the true meaning of which so much de- 
pends, we claim the authority of Christ himself for our under- 
standing of it! Our Lord has given us the key to unlock its 
meaning, and unfold its heavenly treasures ! and not only to 
unfold the meaning of this passage, but of many others of a 
similar nature ! 

«' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you." It appears by the context, that 
many of the " orthodox" of that day, interpreting these words 
(as many now understand the Scriptures) in " a literal and 
logical sense," were highly " offended,'' and '* murmured at 
this saying !" To the right understanding of Gospel truth, our 
Lord's reply is one of the most important passages on record I 
** It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing : 
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are 
life." John vi. 63. 

Here we are taught from the lip of Truth, the true meaning of 
the "flesh and blood of Christ," so frequently spoken of by our 
Lord, the Evangelists and Apostles ! The only flesh and blood 
that quickeneth — thatgiveth life to the soul, is the Holy Spikit ! 
« It is the spirit that quickeneth." — No other power can raise 
the dead sinner to life — break down the partition wall of sin, 
and make an atonement between God and the soul! "The 
flesh profiteth nothing." What flesh profiteth nothing? Christ 
answers the question ! " The flesh of the Son of Man." And 
by a parity of reasoning, his outward material blood, must be 
equally unprofitable ! and for a very plain reason ; because 
elementary flesh and blood are not applicable to the soul ! — 
there is no analogy between material flesh and blood, and the 
immaterial nature of an immortal spirit ! Elementary substances 
may nourish the body — nothing inferior to spiritual food can sus- 
tain the life of the soul 1 1 ! 

By this mode of interpretation, our Lord has given us a key 
to unlock the meaning of many passages of the Holy Scriptures, 
which otherwise admit of no rational explanation. As the 
subject is of primary importance, and immediately connected 
with the doctrine of the atonement, I will spend a few minutes 
in illustrating my views. 

In the first place, it will be conceded by all, that the blood of 
Christ is absolutely necessary to purify us from sin, and pre- 
pare us for admission into the kingdom of heaven ; that every 
soul must be washed in the- blood of the Lamb, before it can be 
fitted for immortal blessedness ! Now if we understand by the 
blood of Christ his outward material blood, this is impossible ! 
No man was ever washed in this blood ! 

Blood is the life of animal nature, and under the Mosaic dis- 



4*78 

pensation, was used as a type or figure of the divine life i 
The Apostle speaking of " the blood of the Testament, which 
God had enjoined on the Jews :" Heb. ix. 20, &e. says : "almost 
all things are by the Law purged with blood ; and without shed- 
ding of blood is no remission." Hence he argues, that as out- 
ward blood was necessary for the remission of legal sins, so a 
" better sacrifice" than outward blood, was necessary for the 
remission of sins under the "New Covenant." The animals 
offered as an atonement under the Law, were typical of Christ, 
the true Gospel atonement. As without the shedding of their 
blood there was no remission of legal sins — so without the pour- 
ing out of the Holy Spirit (the spiritual blood of Christ) there 
is no remission of sins under the Gospel. See Acts ii. 17. 

Secondly. The " blood of Christ" as an active agent, or 
cause of redemption and reconciliation with God, is described 
as an operative, effective principle; thus it is said : Heb. ix. 14 ; 
1st. To " purge the conscience from dead words, to serve the 
living God." 2nd. " To cleanse from all sin," 1 John i. 7. 
3d. " To redeem us to God," Rev. v. 9. 4th. To wash the robes 
of the saints, and make them white," Rev. vii. 14. Now it is 
impossible that material blood can do this for the soul ! But by 
our Lord's explanation of the term, these passages are per- 
fectly plain, and truly descriptive of the means of redemption ! 
It is therefore clear, that they refer us to the Holy Spirit. 
As material blood, the atonement for legal sins — Material water, 
the means of external purification-^materialjire, that separates 
the pure gold from its dross, are all frequently used in th© 
sacred Writings, as symbols of the " Holy Spirit," so the sprink- 
ling of blood, the washing of water, the baptism of fire, are all 
descriptive of the purifying, cleansing operation of the same 
Divine power in the work of man's redemption. 

Thirdly. That the salvation of the soul is effected, not by 
that which Christ did for us in his outward and temporary 
manifestation to the Jews eighteen hundred years ago ; not by 
any imputation of his merits or righteousness, may easily be 
demonstrated from many parts of the inspired Writings ; 
I will quote a few of them : And 1st, " Except ye be convert- 
ed* and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven," Matt. viii. 3. " Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," John iii. 3. "Ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration 
and renewing of 'the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5, " The grace of God, 
that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, 
that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live so- 
berly, righteously, and Godly ;" Tit. ii. 11, 12. " For by grace 
are ye saved, through faith, and that not k of yourselves, it is 



470 

the gift of God." Eph. ii. 8. I could easily fill my paper With 
similar quotations, all going to prove, that salvation is a work 
effected in the soul by the Holy Spirit; an actual redemption 
from the captivity of sin ; a release from the bondage of cor- 
ruption ; a deliverance from the power of darkness, and trans- 
lation of the soul into the kingdom or government of the Holy 
Spirit, which is a kingdom of Divine life and light. 

I am aware, a very different view of the Scripture plan of 
salvation has been adopted by various professors of the Chris- 
tian name. A view, as derogatory to the character of a just 
and merciful God, as it is shocking to reason and contradictory 
to the express language of the inspired penmen ! We are told, 
that (i Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, 
hath fully satisfied the justice of God, and paid the price of our 
redemption,'' — so that in his obedience and sacrifice, there is an 
« infinite superabundance of righteousness and merit ;" — that 
this store of merits is to be effectually applied, and communicated 
to a certain number of mankind, who were eternally predesti- 
nated and foreordained to salvation ! — that " this number is so 
certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased or di- 
minished" — and the rest are sent into everlasting torment, for 
what they could not possibly avoid ! ! ! 

This plan we reject, as grossly injurious to the amiable and glo- 
rious character of the Deity ! — and directly contradicted by many 
Scripture testimonies ! In the first place, the doctrine of paying 
a price to God for our redemption, to satisfy his offended justice, 
is not to be found in any part of the Bible ; the word « satis- 
faction" does not once occur in the New Testament ! Our Lord's 
mission to mankind, was the pure effect of divine compassion : 
" God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." John iii. 16. — That Christ, by his obedience, 
laid up an infinite magazine of merits, to be applied in succeed- 
ing ages to a favoured few, — to be dealt out in morsels to those 
already predestinated to salvation, is the mere invention of be- 
nighted men, unsupported by a single Scriptural text. The 
word 6i merits" is not found in the sacred records. The scheme 
it supports was contrived by Anti-christ, in the dark ages of 
Romish superstition ; and was a source of immense profit to the 
clergy, who kept the magazine of merits, and used to retail 
them as a license to commit sin, or as a kind of plaster for guilty 
consciences ! ! ! When Luther and his fellow-labourers suc- 
ceeded in their opposition to the church of Rome, they took the 
key of this magazine from the clergy, and appointed the third 
person of their Trinity its keeper, who now dispenses its im- 
portant contents to the favourites of heaven, and suffers the rest 



480 

to tumble into the bottomless pit, without remedy ! That suela 
a belief as this, should be entertained in days of gross igno- 
rance and superstition, when every priest was deemed an ora- 
cle, and every man bound to assent to this creed, under pain of 
death or torture, is not very marvellous ! — but that it should 
find advocates in the present day, when every man may read 
his Bible, and when there is neither a gibbet, nor inquisition in 
our land, is truly astonishing ! ! ! 

The great object of my opponent in commencing and contin- 
uing the present controversy, he has at length developed — an 
object that has always been very manifest to all but himself ! 
No one, having a moderate share of discernment, could ever 
doubt the nature of his motives. — We now see the cause of his 
long " prayers, and anxious inquiry after duty !!!" Placed by 
the goodness of Providence, out of the reach of secular power 
in combination with clerical intolerance, it is truly amusing to 
see the various little manoeuvres of the priesthood, to increase 
their influence, and consequently to augment their funds ! ! ! 
*' Paul," after " anxious inquiry," found it his « duty" to 
prove us « heretics ;" and having, with great dexterity, pass- 
ed over the great majority of my arguments, he grasps the 
conclusion, and fixes his terrible seal on it ! ! ! — and what then ? 
"Why, then he calls on his «« Christian brethren" to withdraw 
their 6i support*' and "esteem" from us — to deny us the Chris- 
tian name, until we profess Christian " doctrine ;" that is, the 
doctrine of TRITHE1SM, according to his explanation of it— 
and of course, until we profess this doctrine, — these « bre- 
thren" are invited to join those who do profess it! — « This he 
has said because he had the bag, and bare what was put there- 
in." John xii. 6. 

As for our 6i Christian brethren" of all religious societies, I 
trust we justly value their « esteem," and love them as cordially 
as any people ; but we do not ask their «< support" — we do not 
even desire it ! It is enough for us, if we are supported by the 
hand of a gracious Providence, as we have hitherto been, 
" through evil report and good report ; as deceivers, and yet 
true ; as unknown, and yet well known ; as dying, and behold 
we live." 2 Cor. vi. 8, 9. Can " Paul" have the vanity to 
suppose, that after standing against the united power of the 
clergy, when armed with all the terrors of the civil law, and 
exercising all the cruelty of a Nero on an innocent unoffending 
people, we can be in the least injured by the cry of « heretics ?" 
Has « the rain descended, have the floods came, and the winds 
blown, and beat upon our house, and it fell not" — and is it now 
to fall by the breath of a moth ! It is impossible ! The charac 
ter of the people he has attacked has been too long tested, to bf 



4S1 

shaken by his puny efforts ! The character of our assailant and 
his doctrines, has been too clearly exhibited, to shake any thing 
that stands on the ground of deliberate reflection. 

That •« Paul" did not design to enter deeply into "orthodox 
doctrines" was very prudent in him ! His shyness on this point, 
lias been very manifest from the commencement ! He would 
have acted more discreetly, if he had not sometimes lost sight of 
his design ! The truth is, they will not bear it ; they have 
already been too <* deeply" examined. Investigation is their 
worst enemy ' Like vice they are 

"— — — a monster of such hideous mien, 
That to be hated, need but to be seen." 

The division of the « One God" into « three," — the death of 
a merciful Creator to satisfy his unmerciful Father — the justifi- 
cation of wicked men by a nominal righteousness — the eternal 
punishment of millions by an " eternal decree," — limiting the 
mercy of God to a small number of mankind — making JEHO- 
VAH the author and instigator of sin — sprinkling a little water 
in the face « a seal of the new covenant" — eating bread and 
wine *• a badge of Christianity," are all such gross absurdities, 
that unprejudiced Christians must reject them. They are 
doctrines adapted to the meredian of Rome in her darkest 
days ; but illy suited to a country, where men are at liberty 
to think, and where there is neither an Ecclesiastical court, nor 
inquisitorial dungeon / .' / 

I will now recur to some of my opponent's arguments to 
prove that God cannot pardon sin, unless he receive some 
compensation by way of satisfaction. I will at present pass 
over the absurdity of this doctrine, which supposes the death 
of our Creator to make satisfaction to himself — which supposes 
one part of the Deity so inflexible, that nothing less than the 
murder of another of his parts can appease him ! — which sup- 
poses that the second and third persons of their three-fold Di- 
vinity, though as much Gods as the first, should need no satis- 
faction at all ! All those, and many more irrational conse- 
quences of the Trinitarian scheme, will naturally occur to the 
intelligent reader. 

1st. He says : « If the Law be good, the penalty is good, and 
ought to be inflicted on transgressors." Now if this argument 
be good, God ought to have destroyed the Ninevites at the end 
of forty days, according to the prediction of Jonah. When 
that great city repented and "turned every one from his evil 
way," God « dishonoured his own Law," — he <* denied his own 
justice," by forgiving them ! ! ! My opponent tells us, that 
" to say God will forgive a convicted criminal, before his crime 
61 



4>$2 

has been expiated, by the suffering denounced by the Law, is 
to make him decide contrary to Law; justifying whom the Law 
condems, of course proving an unjust Judge ,'" Thus my learned 
opponent has pronounced God an "unjust Judge;" because 
when he pardoned the repenting Ninevites, refusing to destroy 
half a million of people, he acted contrary to Law ! ! !" For- 
giveness then is contrary to God's Law ! 1 1 

According to this doctrine ; when our Lord said : " If thy 
brother trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven 
times in a day turn again to thee, saying I repent, thou shalt 
forgive him," he only meant, that if the trespasser paid full 
damages for his trespasses, we should kindly forgive him ! ! ! 
Again ; when he taught his disciples to pray to God, saying : 
<* forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," Matt. v. 12, 
he only meant to teach, that we should forgive our debtors, 
after they had paid us, and taken a receipt in full ! ! ! 

2. Again he tells us : « If there be no atonement, then the 
Ceremonial Law had no meaning." To this position I freely 
subscribe. I have never said there is « no atonement." On 
the contrary, I have plead for a real, effectual atonement ! for 
a divine power that really cleanses the soul from sin, and brings 
it into reconciliation with God. The Ceremonial Law was 
an outward law r , "having," as the Apostle says, "a shadow 
of good things to come." Heb. x. 1. Legal offerings and sacri- 
fices are called shadows, in apposition to spiritual offerings! 
Now if the material blood, which by sprinkling it on the out- 
ward altar made an atonement for legal sins, were a type of 
the material blood of Christ, then w 7 e must conclude, that one 
material substance was a type for another material substance ; 
which would destroy the relation between type and antitype ! 
The outward temple was a type of the true Christian, whom the 
Apostle tells us, is a " temple of the Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. vi. 
9. The outward altar w 7 as a type of the altar of the heart. — 
The incense arising from the Jewish altar was a type of the 
prayers of the saints, ascending from God's spiritual altar, a 
purified heart ! Rev. viii. 4. In like manner, " the blood of 
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, which, sprink- 
ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," was 
a type of " the [spiritual] blood of Christ" — the Holy Spirit, 
which alone can " purge the conscience from dead works to 
serve the living God." Heb. ix. 13, 14. 

Under this view of the subject, we see, that " the ceremo- 
nial Law" had a sublime, a deeply important meaning! It 
was (i a shadow of good things," divine realities, " to come :* 9 — 
Its types and figures had their respective antitypes — and are all 
fulfilled in the experience of " the crucified and quickened 
Christian." 



483 

All my opponent's arguments, therefore, which go to prove 
an atonement necessary, are works of supererogation ! The 
great difference between us in this point, as in almost all others, 
lies in our mode of understanding the Scriptures. We consider 
God as onepure, eternal Holy Spirit, who created, and upholds, 
and fills all things. He considers him a kind of compounded 
being, made up of finite parts, one of which can be in one place, 
whilq the others are in another. One of which is again com- 
pounded of flesh, and blood, and bones, and spirit — the others 
being two distinct Holy Spirits ! — one of them mortal, the others 
immortal! — one of them rigidly just, but very unmerciful ; an- 
other very merciful, but very unjust I We consider the saving 
"flesh and blood of Christ." are " spirit and life;" he considers 
them outward and elementary. — We consider the righteousness 
of Christ real and substantial — he considers it unreal and im- 
putative — we consider the Gospel justification a being made 
just, — he considers it a cloak for sin I We consider the baptism 
of Christ, a baptism of the ** holy spirit and of fire," — he consi- 
ders it the sprinkling of water in the face I We consider the 
Lord's supper, a spiritual communion with Christ — a parti- 
cipation of "the bread that cometh down from heaven," and of 
the " new wine of the kingdom ; v — he considers it the eating of 
bread that grows out of the earth, a drinking of wine the pro- 
duction of Madeira or Teneriffe J We consider God's love uni- 
versal, that he is « not willing that any should perish, but that 
all should come to repentance ;" — he considers it limited to a 
very few, and that God has eternally decreed that all the rest 
should go into everlasting perdition ! And for all this he con- 
siders us as " heretics," and calls upon our *< Christian brethren 
to deny us the Christian name ;" — and we consider him like 
those who requested our Lord to call down fire from heaven, to 
consume those who differed from them in opinion^-that he 
** knows not what spirit he is of," — that his mind is darkened, 
being alienated from that divine light, which " is the true light, 
that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," 

At the same time, that from the unequivocal evidence fur- 
nished by himself, we are bound thus to consider our opponent, 
I would not be understood to mean, that we consider all those 
who do not subscribe to our sentiments, in the same state. Far 
be it from us ! — We believe that our Lord " has many sheep 
that are not of our fold" — that " in every nation, they that fear 
God and work righteousness, are accepted of him ;"— that God 
does not judge of men by their creeds, but by the sincerity of 
their hearts, and the purity of their lives— .and that all the noise 
that is made in the world about « modes of faith," is to him but 
« as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal," unless it be ac» 



484 

companied by " a real substantial righteousness in the heart 
and life." — And we believe, that however Christians may differ 
in doctrinal points, yet if they walk in the light, as GOD is in 
the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood 
of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. AMICUS. 

Friday, December 20, 1822. 

LETTER XLII. 

ON ATONEMENT AND JUSTIFICATION. 

" This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not 
by water only, but by water and blood." 1 John v. 6. 

The salvation of Jesus Christ has two parts : Justification 
and Sanctification. These two, though they never should be 
separated, should never be confounded. By justification we 
are delivered from the curse of the Law, and entitled to hea- 
ven ; by sanctification our nature is renewed, and made meet 
for. heaven. The former Christ hath purchased by his "blood/* 
or his sufferings in our stead ; the latter is accomplished b^ <s 
Spirit, so often emblematized by '* water." That Christ sh<»aid 
come *« by water," i. e. to cleanse our hearts from the pollutions 
of sin, was predicted and typified under the olii dispensatu.n, 
by ablutions, baptizing, purifyings, &c. : that he should come 
also by « blood," i. e. to expiate our guilt by dying in our stead, 
was also typified and certified by all their bloody sacrifices. 
See Hebrews ix. and x. One part of this salvation you would 
have us leave entirely out of view. You would make us believe 
lie came « by water only f* whereas, he came «* not by water 
only, but by water and blood." He came not only to work in 
us a '** righteousness of heart and life," but, as a preparatory 
step, to 6i deliver us from the curse of the Law, by being made 
a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. These two parts of his salvation 
are strikingly represented by the two ordinances of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. The latter represents our justification 
by the «« blood" or atonement of Christ, and is therefore call- 
ed the « cup of the New Covenant in his blood ;" the latter 
represents our sanctification by the Si washing of regeneration 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Tit. iii. 5. Hence, in speak- 
ing of the " three that bear record in earth," (1 John v. 8,) he 
mentions as two "the water and blood," i. e. the two standing 
ordinances of the church. And while these two ordinances con- 
tinue to be administered in the church, we shall have Twa 



485 

Witnesses that Christ came « not by water only, but by "blood," 
to make atonement, as well as to work in us a *« substantial 
righteousness of heart and life." 

That an atonement is absolutely necessary to salvation, and 
has actually been made, 1 brought in my last, fifteen arguments 
to prove. Of these •« Amicus" has noticed only two or three; 
for what reason he was so shy of the rest, let the public judge. 
Among other erroneous remarks, I notice the following : 

Rem. 1. « That the salvation of the soul is effected, not by 
what Christ did for us in his outward and temporary manifesta- 
tion eighteen hundred years ago ; not by any imputation of his 
merits or righteousness , may be easily demonstrated from Scrip- 
ture." Eusy, however, as he thought it to «• demonstrate" his 
position, in his attempt he completely failed ! His quotations 
only prove that the atonement is not all the salvation of Christ; 
that sanctification must follow that atonement before salvation 
can be complete. We do not say that Christ came "by blood 
only," but " by water and blood." And all his efforts to prove 
that the Saviour came by « water," do not prove that he came 
by *« water only" — which it was his object to prove ! 

2. He is continually railing against predestination , election, 
and particular redemption, as if Paul had ever advanced these 
sentiments, or even hinted at them ! They have nothing to do 
with this controversy ; and the only remark (now recollected) 
ever made by Paul upon these subjects, was to this effect : that 
* a belief of the above doctrines was not essential to salvation." 
Where then does " Amicus" get his ground for railing? Rea- 
der, he got it where he got my « declaration" that I was a 
66 hireling minister," — a scholar from a « theological semina- 
ry ;" a declaration which he assures you I have made !! ! A 
writer, however, who can quote from Scripture what is not in 
Scripture, may well quote from my writings what no one but 
himself ever saw in them ! The fact is, he wishes to excite a 
diversion in his favour among the Christians who are opposed 
to «• Calvinistic" doetrines, by identifying the doctrines of the 
Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the atonement with the Cal- 
vinistic system ! This high compliment to Calvinistic churches, 
the Methodists and Episcopalians will not thank him for. They 
will esteem it no honour to be ranked with Socinians, Arians, 
Sabellians, and those who < w deny the Lord that bought them," 
and reject the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel ! 

3. He says : « The doctrine of paying a price to God for our 
redemption, to satisfy his offended justice, is not to be found in 
any part of the Bible.' 9 That you cannot find it, is no proof it is 
not there. Those who cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity 
and divinity of Christ, would not surprise us if they failed to 



486 

iind any one doctrine of Christianity in the sacred volume ! 
However, if Christ paid no "price for our salvation," how 
could the Apostle say 1 Cor. vi. 20. vii. 23 : «« Ye are bought 
with a price /" Acts xx. 28 : «* He purchased the church with 
his own blood. 91 1 Pet. i. 18 : "Ye were redeemed not with cor- 
ruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood 
of Christ." Matt. xx. 28 : •« The Son of Man came to give his 
life a ransom for many." Now, how could he «« purchase" with- 
out a price ! What is a « ransom," but a price / And what was 
this ransom but his " life," his " blood !" The Bible therefore 
plainly teaches, that our salvation was purchased with a price, 
and that price was the blood or the atonement of our Saviour. 

4. He brings the case of the Ninevitts as a proof that God 
can and does pardon sin without a satisfaction. — Now, not to ar- 
gue, as I might, that the « repentance" of these ^inevites was, 
like the repentance of Ahab, merely external ; and the «« par- 
don" bestowed a mere removal of temporal judgment, (as most 
Christians and commentators suppose); if we grant their re- 
pentance was sincere, and their pardon complete, does it follow 
their sin was pardoned without a satisfaction ? By no means ; 
for in the purpose of God, and in the eternal covenant of peace, 
Christ was " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the worldV 
Accordingly, God is said to set forth Christ *» to be a propitia- 
tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness in the 
remission of sins that were past, through the forbearance of 
God," i. e. that God might appear to be righteous in the for- 
giveness he had already shown to ancient saints. As it is said 
in the next verse : " to declare his righteousness, that he might 
be Just, and the justifer of him that belie veth in Jesus," Horn, 
iii. 24. If there be any meaning in these passages, they prove 
that without such a « propitiation," God could not have been 
" righteous" in the « remission of sins ;" without such a satis- 
faction, he could not have been "just" in "justifying" those 
who believe. In other words, they prove the necessity and the 
reality of an atonement. 

5. He says : « The sacrifices of the ceremonial Law typifi- 
ed not a material outward sacrifice, but a spiritual offering on 
the altar of the heart," i. e. the ancient sacrifices of living vic- 
tims were typical of the influence of the Holy Spirit on our 
hearts. According to your statement, then, the death or 
Christ was an event of no consequence, and had no typical re- 
presentation under the old economy ! ! ! The fact is, the influ- 
ence of the spirit on our hearts was typified (as I have before 
observed) by the sprinklings, incense, circumcision, and other 
shadows of that dispensation ; while every innocent victim slain 
fft « make atonement" for sin, was typical of that one giori- 



4S7 

ous victim, who was afterwards offered on Mount Calvary tot 
the sins of the world ! 

6. He thinks it a horrible doctrine, that "Forgiveness iscon* 
trary to God's law .'" I would ask him in what part of the moral 
law (for it is this law of which sin is a transgression) provision 
is made for forgiveness ? I never saw it ; I only read, " Cursed 
is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book 
of the Law to do tbem : Gal. iii. 10. Forgiveness is contrary 
to this law ; and " if righteousness (or forgiveness) could have 
come by it, then Christ is dead in vain !" Gal. ii. 21. I speak 
not of the forgiveness of a brother's injury, but of the conduct of 
a judge towards a convicted criminal. As individuals, we are 
bound to forgive our individual personal injuries, even till " se- 
venty times seven times," and that without any satisfaction on 
their part. But a judge has no right to forgive ; and if he does 
forgive a criminal whom the law condemns, he acts contrary to 
law, and is an unjust judge. I repeat it, therefore, in denying 
the atonement, you make God an « unjust judge," trampling on 
his own holy and perfect law ! ! ! 

And here I leave the subject of atonement. His principal ob- 
jections are now answered ; and ten or twelve of my strongest 
arguments he has not dared to notice. 

I cannot conclude this controversy with a more important sub- 
ject than that of 

JUSTIFICATION. 

In Letter xvi. p. 179, the public has had a short introductory 
essay on this subject, which (should these Letters be ever pub- 
lished in a volume) I should be glad to have inserted here. In 
that number, the importance of the controversy, the precise 
state of the question, your sentiments quoted from Barclay, 
Kersey and others, and a few arguments for the truth, were 
presented to the public. 

The errors with which you were then charged, « Amicus," 
in his last two numbers, has fully avowed. He has laboured to 
prove that we are not to be justified by the righteousness of 
"another, who died eighteen hundred years ago/' but by a 
" substantial righteousness of heart and life," by a " subject- 
ing of our will to the Divine will," by a righteousness "jpro- 
duced by our obedience to the word of God nigh in the 
heart ; or, as he says again : " produced by our submission 
to the operation of the Spirit." 

Now, that your foundation is a foundation of sand, is evi- 
dent. 

1. Because to be justified by internal righteousness, is really 
to be justified by our ewn works/ Your internal righteousness 



is made up of several different graces ; such as faith, repent- 
ance, love, humility, thankfulness, &c. all which are « works 
of our own;" and to be justified by these, is to be justified by 
our own works ; — in other words, these works are <* the works' 
of the Law," by which « no flesh living shall be justified." 
We can be justified in no other way than by the obedience and 
death of Jesus Christ. 

2. We cannot be justified by any " righteousness in our 
hearts," because all such righteousness is imperfect. To be jus- 
tified without righteousness is impossible ; and to be justified 
by an imperfect righteousness is equally impossible. For to 
justify is to pronounce perfectly righteous. But no man can be 
pronounced as in himself perfectly righteous. For if we admit 
him to be perfect in love and obedience at the present time, it 
will not be pretended of any sinner that he was always perfect; 
or that taking his whole life into view, he can be pronounced 
perfectly righteous. If therefore a man, who was once a sinner, 
be at this time ever so « righteous in heart and life," if he be 
ever so " obedient to the word nigh in the heart," or ever 
so « submissive to the operation of the spirit," he cannot be 
thereby justified; because he was not always perfectly righ- 
teous, and a long score of former sins is yet unexpired ! But 
by the death of Jesus Christ, all our old sins are expiated, and 
by his obedience or righteousness imputed to us, we are com- 
pletely justified who believe in him. 

3. We are to be justified "by faith without the deeds of the 
Law." Rom. iii. 28. « Therefore we conclude," says the in- 
spired Apostle, « that a man is justified by faith without the 
deeds of the Law." Here, Note 1. The Apostle takes it for 
granted, there is such a thing as Justification ; " a man is jus- 
tified." 2. He is justified without any obedience or righteous- 
ness of heart and life, — «.* without the deeds of the Law." 3. 
That he is justified by faith alone: " he is justified by faith 
without the deeds of the Law." 

4. We are to be justified by a righteousness not properly our 
own 9 but received from God by faith. Phil. iii. 9 : " That 1 may 
win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own righteous- 
ness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith 
of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." Here 
the Apostle points out the righteousness by which he expected 
to be justified : — 1. Not by any righteousness of heart and life: 
" not having on mine own righteousness." 2. Nor faith itself 
(which some have taught was the meritorious cause of our jus- 
tification,) but that which is " through faith," — " the righteous- 
ness which is of God by faith ;" that is, the righteousness of 
Christ made ours by imputation. 



489 

5. We are to be justified/reefy and through grace. Rom. iii. 24. 
" Being justified/reefy by his grace, through the redemption that 
is in Jesus Christ." Note, believers are to be " justified,'* — 
justified " freely," without any consideration of merit or de- 
merit in their hearts or lives, — justified by Ins " grace," with- 
out regard to works either good or bad; — justified "through 
the redemption that is in Jesus Christ;" i. e. through the ransom 
which he paid, and the righteousness he prepared. 

6. We are to be justified by Christ's righteousness, in the same 
way in which he was condemned for our sins. 2 Cor. v. 21 : " He 
hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might 
be made the righteousness of God in him." Now Christ was 
« made sin," not by infusing a "substantial sinfulness of heart 
and life," but imp uting sin, or charging sin to his account. In the 
same way we become " the righteousness of God in him," not 
by his working in us a " substantial righteousness," but by im- 
puting, or crediting his righteousness to our account. 

7. We are to be justified by imputed righteousness : Romans 
iv. 5. " David describeth the blessedness of the man unto 
whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works." 
From this passage we learn — 1. There is such a thing as "im- 
puted righteousness," which many speak of as if it were an ab- 
surdity I — 2. That there is such a thing as " righteousness with- 
out works" which according to your doctrine is impossible ! — 

3. That this is the very righteousness by which " David" hop- 
ed, and every Christian hopes to be saved. And therefore — 

4. Your doctrine which founds justification on an internal 
righteousness, and measures our righteousness by our " works," 
is unseriptural and dangerous. Our justification is perfect in 
Christ, — «is perfect the moment we believe in him ; — but our 
sanctification is progressive and in exact proportion to our 
works. 

8. We cannot be justified by internal righteousness, because 
we are justified when ungodly. Rom. iv. 3 : "But to him that 
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un- 
godly, his faith is counted (or imputed) for righteousness." 
From this passage we learn, 1. That our works do not consti- 
tute our righteousness — " to him that worketh not his faith is 
counted for righteousness." 2. That it is not our godliness 
which justifies us, for we are justified when " ungodly." Now 
if the " ungodly" have a righteousness to justify them, it can- 
not be in themselves, for this would be a contradiction in terms. 
The righteousness, therefore, by which sinners are justified, 
must be withont themselves, — in other words in Jesus Christ. 

9. The Scriptural way of justification excludes boasting. Rom. 
ill. 27 : " Where is boasting then ? It is excluded." iv, 2 : "If 

62 



490 

Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory." It 
is plain, then, 1. That a way of justification which admits of 
boasting, is not the right way. But 2. Your doctrine, that our 
obedience to the word nigh in the heart « produces" righteous- 
ness ; that our •• submission to the operation of the Spirit pro- 
duces" that righteousness by which we are justified, really 
takes the glory of our salvation from God, and gives all the credit 
to ourselves ! ! I Your doctrine makes man the (i producer" o£ his 
own righteousness, and the author of his own justification ! ! ! 

To all this it will be objected, 

Obj. 1. " The doctrine of imputation is not found in the Bi- 
ble." I know not what Bible some people may use, but if you 
will take the common edition, and turn to the fourth chapter of 
Romans, you will find the term (i impute," and its equivalents 
« count," « reckon," used no less than ten times in that single 
chapter ! Witness the following expressions : " It was counted 
unto him for righteousness" — " his faith is counted for righte- 
ousness" — »* God imputeth righteousness without works"— . 
" Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin'' — 
" faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness" — ** that 
righteousness might be imputed unto them also" — " And there- 
fore it was imputed unto him for righteousness." " Now it was 
imputed to him for us also, to whom it shall be imputed if we be- 
lieve," &c. Rom. iv. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24. And yet there 
is no such thing as imputed sin or imputed righteousness in the 
Bible ! 

Obj. 2. " The doctrine of justification by the righteousness 
of another, tends to licentiousness, inasmuch as it leads us to 
neglect a personal righteousness" I am willing the tendency of 
the doctrine should be judged of by its effects on the life and 
conduct, — and am sure that the holiest men of every age, have 
lived and died in the full belief of it. No doctrine tends so 
strongly to humble the believer and exalt the Saviour ; we never 
separate, either in theory or in practice, these two parts of 
our salvation, W\z justification of our persons, and the sancti- 
Jication of our nature. Though a " righteousness of heart and 
life" is not the ground of our pardon, it inevitably follows it ; 
and where there is no " righteousness of heart," there is no 
evidence of reconciliation with God. 

As you will probably stigmatize all this as « Calvinism," I 
will in conclusion, quote the sentiments of a church and of a 
great and good man, not generally accused of « Calvinistic" 
sentiments. On the subject of « justification," the ixth Article 
of the Methodist church says : " We are accounted righteous 
before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesu s 
Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings ; 



4>9L 

•wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most whole 
some doctrine, and very full of comfort." And in the next 
article, it is said : that « good works are the fruits of faith, and 
follow after justification," of course, cannot be the ground of 
justification. Similar to these were the sentiments of John 
Wesley. In his sermon on Jer. xxiii. 6, he asks : « When 
is it that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, — and in 
what sense is it imputed? To all believers the righteousness 
of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not. But when is it 
imputed? When they believe. In that very hour the righteous- 
ness of Christ is theirs. But in what sense is this righteousness 
imputed to believers ? In this : all believers are forgiven and 
accepted, not for the sake of any thing in them, or any thing 
that ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but wholly 
and solely for the sake of what Christ had done and suffered for 
them. Not of works lest any man should boast, but wholly and 
solely for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for 
us." Again ; in his Sermon on Rom. iv. 5, speaking of the 
justified person, he says: " God will not inflict on that sinner 
what he deserved to suffer, because the Son of his love suffered 
for him. — He hath no righteousness at all antecedent to his justifi- 
cation. But faith is imputed to him for righteousness the very 
moment that he believeth. Not that God thinketh him to be 
what he is not. But as he made Christ to be sin for us, that 
is, treated him as a sinner, punishing him for our sins, so he 
counteth us righteous from the time we believe in him : that 
is, he doth not punish us for our sins, but treats us as though 
we were guiltless and righteous." Beauties of Wesley, p. p. 
52—56. 

Thus ends a long, but I trust, not an unprofitable contro- 
versy. If the controversy be published, I shall claim the pri- 
vilege of writing a preface. Mr. Robert Porter of Wilmington, 
has my consent to publish the whole or any part of what I have 
written, on his own account, or connected with any other per- 
son, in any shape that he or they may deem proper. 

And now, my dear friends, I bid you FAREWELL ! May 
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, 
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, bring you out of dark- 
ness into his marvellous light, for his name's sake ! Amen. 

PAUL. 

— ;«; — 

As " Paul, 5 ' in his last letter, complains that I have left a number of 
his arguments unanswered, I would just observe, that the limits of the Re- 
pository make it absolutely impossible to notice every argument in a forms} 
manner. But as I have only one letter more to write, and as I am desirous 



i92 

of replying to all his attempts to establish what I consider an inconsistent 
irrational scheme, to do which will require more time than I can at present 
devote to the subject, my closing letter will be postponed to a future num- 
ber of the Repository. AMICUS. 
12th mo. 27, 1322. 

From " Amicus*" note inserted in the last Repository, I infer he intends 
loading the paper and the public with a letter still longer than his former 
numbers ! The object of this note is to give notice, that if more than the 
usual quantity be inserted in the Repository, I shall claim the privilege of a 
reply equal in length to his excess. As he has already exceeded me in the 
number, and still more in the length of his letters, the demand made in the 
note cannot be considered unreasonable. I have no wish, however, to write 
more, and shall be satisfied and pleased if he confines himself to proper limits 
Dec. 31, 1822. PAUL. 

—i : ■*:* : — i 

Sixth-day, 1st mo. 17, 1823. 

LETTER XLII. 

"Paul" in his last Letter^ tells ns, " that salvation has two 
parts, justification and sanctification." This is quite in cha- 
racter with the doctrine which divides the Deity into three 
parts ! I always thought salvation was a being saved from sin, 
and all its consequent miseries ! — In one word, " redemption." 
That divine Being, to whom the prophet addressing himself, 
says: " Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst 
not look upon iniquity," my opponent represents as the justifier 
of the wicked, whilst he remains in his wickedness ! The 
Psalmist queries: " Shall the throne of iniquity [the corrupt 
tinsanctified heart] have fellowship with thee ?" — "Paul" an- 
swers in the affirmative! — A man may be justified whilst he 
remains ungodly !«— God will have fellowship with iniquity!—- 
Christ will have concord with Belial ! This I consider as a 
doctrine of Antichrist; and all " Paul's" arguments to main- 
tain it, are contrary to the express language of Scripture, and 
wholly inconsistent with the purity of the Deity. 

The word "justification" is derived from two Latin words — 
the adjective "Justus," (just,) and the verb " facio," (to make,) 
and in its proper sense, signifies " to make just." When the 
Apostle says: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
hirn that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righte- 
ousness," Rom. iv. 5. it is evident by the context, 1st, That by 
works he means " the works of the Law" of Moses— - ceremonial 
sacrifices, — the "meats, and drinks, and divers washings," of 



that dispensation; all of which were abolished by the death of 
Christ, who took them out of the way, « nailing them to his 
eross :" ** For, (says the Apostle,) by the works of the Law, no 
flesh shall be justified," Gal. ii. 16; and "therefore, we con- 
clude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the 
Law," Rom. iii. 28. By which it is evident, that he had not 
tiie least allusion to evangelical works, for without these no man 
can be justified in the sight of God. 2nd, That by God's justi- 
fying " the ungodly," he did not mean, that Divine purity could 
ever pronounce a wicked man just/ — for tf it is impossible for 
God to lie," Rom. vi. 18. — but, that true evangelical "faith, 
which worketh by love, to the purifying of the heart," operating 
by its own divine energy on the souls of ungodly men, actually 
produces a reformation, works a change of heart, and makes 
them just. Gal. vi. 6. Acts xv. 9. This is the way, and the 
only way, that God "justifies the ungodly/" — Therefore, to be 
"justified by faith ,"is to be made just, by the effectual operation 
of the Holy Spirit in the soul, through faith. 

This kind of righteousness my opponent pronounces « a 
foundation of sand !" But whoever may be so happy as to at- 
tain to it, will find it in the day of trial, a « rock, against 
which the gates of hell shall never be able to prevail ;" while 
the poor deluded ungodly professor, wrapped up in his cloak 
of imputative righteousness, and nominal justification, though he 
may cry « Lord, Lord," shall be swept away in the storm. 

Imputative righteousness will do as much for a real sinner, as 
the impiitation of vision will do for the man that is utterly de- 
prived of sight / When « Bartimeus" sat in the suburbs of 
Jericho, his eyes sealed in total darkness, had some theological 
Pharisee told him, that the eyes of Moses were outwardly im- 
puted to him, it would have done him just as much service, as 
the doctrine oUmputative righteousness does to the unregenerate 
sinner in the present day ! If the blind Bartimeus had believ- 
ed him, he might have sat still when bur Lord passed by, and 
would have gone down to his grave in darkness ; but like the 
truly awakened sinner, who hungers and thirsts, not after im- 
putative righteousness, but after the substantial righteousness 
of Christ, he applied for relief, to Him who is " able to save 
to the uttermost, all who come unto God by him," and the very 
same Divine power that now saves the humble penitent, not in 
his sins, but " from his sins," opened his eyes to the beauties 
of creation, and effectually restored him to the countless ad- 
vantages of light ! 

As I apprehend no branch of the present controversy, is of 
more practical importance, than the one now under discussion, 
I will therefore enter more minutely into it, and take up my 
opponent's arguments in the order they are stated. He says ; 



*9& 

1. "To be justified by internal righteousness, is really to be 
justified by our own works, because internal righteousness is 
made up of several different graces; such as faith, repentance, 
love, humility, thankfulness, &c. all which, are " works of our 
own;" and to be justified by these, is to be justified by "our own 
works." In this sentence we have a fair specimen of school divi- 
nity, directly opposed to the plainest testimonies of the inspired 
penmen, as I will endeavour to prove. 1. « Faith," he says, " is 
our own work .'" The Apostle was of a different opinion ; he tells 
ns expressly, it is the fruit of the Spirit "The fruit of the Spirit 
is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, faith, 
&e." Gal. v. 22. Again, he says positively, it is the gift of the 
Spirit : " For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom — 
to another faith, by the same Spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 8. True 
faith is the very power of God in the soul, the great and effici- 
ent means of salvation. — It purifies the heart, Acts xv. 9 ; — It 
sanctifies the soul, xxvi. 18 ; — It justifies, makes us just, Rom. 
iii. 28, 30 ; Gal. iii. 8; — It is the substance of things hoped for, 
the evidence of things not seen." Heb. xi. 1. — Its author is God, 
and its end is salvation. 1 Pet. i. 9.; and is no more our own 
work, than the sun, moon, and stars, are our own work ! ! / 
2. Neither is repentance our own work ! — a man can no more 
repent when he pleases, than he can fly when he pleases ! It is 
the mercy of God to the soul, and as much his gift as faith is ! — 
It is the gift of God through Christ ! — No man can command 
it, no man can give it ! Let us hear the language of inspira- 
tion on this point : " The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, 
whom He hath exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give 
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." — Again : " Then 
hath God also, to the Gentiles, granted repentance unto life." 
Acts v. 31. xi. 18. — Again : " The servant of the Lord must be 
gentle unto all men; in meekness instructing those that oppose 
themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance, to 
the acknowledging of the truth." 2 Tim. ii. 2i«, 25. 3. Neither 
is Gospel love our own work ! « The fruit of the spirit is love." 
Gal. v. 22. It is no more the work of man, than is the Atlan- 
tic ocean! Let the divinely illuminated Evangelist speak to 
this point : " Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of 
God, and every one that loveth is horn of God, and knoweth 
God !" — 'for " God is love." 1 John iv. 7, 8. In fine, the works 
of humility or meekness, thankfulness or gratitude to God, 
long suffering, gentleness, &c. &c. are all the fruits of the 
spirit, the genuine productions of a new birth of the Divinity, 
and as such entitle the new man in Christ, to all the blessings 
of the heavenly kingdom, because they qualify him for the hap- 
piness of the heavenly state ! To say that such works as these 



495 

are our own works, or the works of the Law, is just as true as 
to say that Adam first make himself, and afterwards made this 
earth, for the convenience of a garden ground ! ! ! 

2nd, My opponent says : " We cannot be justified by any 
righteousness in our hearts, because all such righteousness is 
imperfect. To be justified without righteousness is impossible, 
and to be justified by an imperfect righteousness is equally im- 
possible. For to justify, is to pronounce perfectly righteous. But 
no man can be pronounced as in himself perfectly righteous." 
This sentence gives us a further view of the nature of School 
Divinity ; and proves it to be what it really is, the invention of 
dark human wisdom, from which God has always hidden the 
mysteries of the kingdom, while he reveals them to babes* 
Matt. xi. 25. Now, if " we cannot be justified by any righte- 
ousness in our hearts," we cannot be justified at all ! For if we 
be justified by faith, that faith must be in the heart ; and if in 
the heart, it must operate there, and if it operate there, there it 
must produce its own proper fruits ; for the Apostle describes 
faith as an operative principle: «In Jesus Christ, neither cir- 
cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith, 
which worketh by love.*' Gal. v. 6. It was this divine principle 
that operated in the hearts of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, 
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, &c. &c. and made them righteous 
in heart and life ; and it was this righteousness that entitled them 
to the exalted character of " friends of God ;" for " was not 
Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered 
Isaac his son upon the altar? — Seest thou not (O Imputarian) 
how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made 
perfect !" James ii. 21. Now, was this an imperfect righeous- 
ness ? It would border on impiety to affirm it ! All God's works 
are perfect — the fruits of genuine faith, however circumscrib- 
ed in extent, are perfect in their nature ! Repentance, which is 
the gift of God, is perfect in its nature, and perfectly answers 
the end intended, wherever He is pleased to give it ! The love 
of God, shed abroad in the heart, is perfect in its nature, whe- 
ther it only produces the tear of gratitude, or whether it en- 
raptures the soul, and transports it into the third heavens i' 
That humility which is produced by the shining of divine light, 
whether bv revealing to our understanding the purity, the 
greatness, and the majesty of God, or the weakness, the wretch- 
edness, and misery of man without Him! Whether it raises the 
humble prayer for preservation in the truth, or causes us to 
" abhor ourselves, as in dust and ashes," is perfect in its na- 
ture ; and so are all the other good works f have mentioned, 
beear.se they are the works of a perfect and infinitely glorious 
Being, produced by his own immediate operation on the soul ! 



496 

" To be justified without righteousness, is impossible ; to be 
justified by an imperfect righteousness, is equally impossible." 
Granted. And what follows ? Why, if it be impossible to be 
justified without righteousness, then justifying righteousness must 
be a real substantial righteousness , because an unreal righteous- 
ness is no righteousness at all, it is the mere phantom of a dis- 
tempered brain ! — And this is exactly such a righteousness as 
my opponent pleads for!— It is an ignis fatuus, to lead the poor 
sinner into the dark regions of carnal security — to amuse him 
with the idea that all is safe, while the leprosy of sin is preying 
upon his vitals. — It is a mere cloak to cover his wound — an 
anodyne to lull him to sleep, till death overtake him, and the 
searcher of hearts find him ; a loathsome and polluted subject, 
totally unprepared for that kingdom, into which "nothing that 
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
lie, shall in any wise enter." Rev. xxi. 27. 

My opponent assumes the ground, that « to justify is to pro- 
nounce perfectly righteous." This doctrine, I presume, was in- 
vented in some theological seminary, for I am very certain it is 
not to be found in the Holy Scriptures ! To say, that God ever pro- 
nounced a wicked man perfectly righteous, is a gross absurdity — 
it is to charge the God of truth with falsehood ! ! ! The Aposto- 
lic doctrine is : « He that doeth righteousness is righteous" — 
H He that committeth sin is of the Devil." 1 John iii. 7, 8. My 
opponent reverses the divine order, — <« he that doeth wicked- 
ness may be perfectly righteous" — «< he that committeth sin may 
be a justified child of God /" This doctrine is not only absurd, 
but it is dangerous and extremely pernicious ! It confounds the 
immutable distinction between right and wrong, and is highly 
derogatory to the character of the Deity ! 

But we are told : (t If a man who was once a sinter, be at 
this time ever so righteous in heart and life, ever so obedient 
to the word nigh in the heart, ever so submissive to the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, he cannot be thereby justified, because 
be was not always perfectly righteous, a long score of former 
sins is yet unexpiated." — This doctrine is, if possible, more 
absurd than its forerunner! — It supposes impossibilities! — It 
supposes a man may be so perfectly redeemed from sin, by obe- 
dience to the « Word nigh in the heart," the " law of the spirit 
of life in Christ Jesus, which makes free from the law of sin 
and death." Rom. viii. 2. So submissive to God, who « work- 
eth in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure. Phil, 
ii. 13, as to become really just, and yet remain unjustified !! ! 
It supposes a man may attain, by divine assistance, the highest 
state of Christian perfection, without repentance! ! ! It sup- 



*97 

poses a man may « repent and be converted," whilst his former 
sins have not been forgiven ! ! ! 

Now as conviction and reproof for sin, is God's first work in 
the soul for its redemption, so repentance is man's first step 
towards God — the first evangelical work that precedes justifica- 
tion ; — without iU no man was ever justified ; with it, no man 
was ever condemned ; because this is a work of God in the soul f 
by which the soul is turned "from the darkness" of sin, " to 
the light" of divine life, and " from the power of Satan to the 
power of God." This was the first annunciation of the Gospel, 
that came by Jesus Christ : " Repent, for the Kingdom of Hea- 
ven is at hand." This kingdom is God's free gift ? His own pure 
love and infinite mercy are the sole motives of this gift; but it 
can only be given to the repentant, because none other than they 
can possibly receive it ; and when received, it is the sole cause 
of justification, righteousness, sanetification, and perfect re- 
demption !-— Now, to those who receive this free gift, it be- 
comes, according to Christ's own words : " the kingdom of God 
within you,* 9 Luke xvi. 21. It is " God manifest in our flesh.'* 
1 Tim. iii. 16. It is " Christ in you, the hope of glory," Col. i, 
27.' Rom. viii. 10. "It is the spirit of God which speaketh in 
you." Mat. x. 20, It is " Jesus Christ come in the flesh; 99 and 
" he that confesseth it not," the Apostle expressly declares. 
" is not of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof 
you have heard, that it should come, and even now already it 
is in the world," 1 John iv. 3. This is that spirit that denies 
that ** Christ is the true light, that lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world." John i. 9. This is that spirit that calls 
this true light sin " ignis fatuus," a " Jack-o-lantern, a " mis- 
guiding spirit ! ! !" 

3d. Again lie says : "We are to be justified by faith with- 
out the deeds of the Law ;" and then concludes : that " we are 
justified without any obedience or righteousness of heart and 
life." Now the command to sinners is : " Repent, and be con- 
verted, that your sins may be blotted out." Acts iii. 19. But upon 
the hypothesis of my opponent, obedience to this command, is en- 
tirely unnecessary, in order to justification — and then without 
any repentance, if the filthy sinner will only say he has/a#A— 
will only subscribe to some abstract proposition— God will 
"justify" him, will " pronounce him perfectly righteous," al- 
though at the same time, in the very nature of things, this un- 
repenting hypocrite must be an abomination in the sight of Di- 
vine purity, as well as in the judgment of all good men ! — This 
doctrine wants a name that will adequately describe its turpi* 
tude! 

4eth. "We are to be justified bv a righteousness not properly 
63 



498 

our own, but received from God by faith." To this proposition 
I freely assent ! — but not to the unnatural conclusion he draws 
from it, when he says : ** this righteousness is not a righteous- 
ness of heart and life." The text he here quotes is very illy 
selected for his purpose : " That I may win Christ and be found 
in him" &c. to use the words of the Apostle : « If any man be 
in Christ, he is a new creature ; old things are past away ! be- 
hold all things are become new, and all things of God." 2 Cor. 
v. 17. In this happy redeemed state, man lives the innocent 
life of Christ, having obtained a real substantial righteousness 
of heart and life. 

5th. « We are justified freely through grace." Granted — 
But how 1 " by the redemption that is in Christ !"— And this 
redemption is a real redemption, not only from the guilt, but the 
power of sin ! — As God «* redeemed Israel out of the house of 
bondage, and from the hand of Pharaoh." Deut. vii. 8. So the 
redemption that is in Christ, is an actual redemption from the 
bondage of iniquity. As the Israelites were really ransomed 
bv divine power from Egyptian slavery, so Christ now really 
ransoms his obedient children from the slavery of sin. Isa. 
xliii, 3. 

6th. "We are to be justified by Christ's righteousness, in 
the same way that he was condemned for our sins." If this 
were granted, we could never be justified at all, for Christ ne- 
ver was condemned for our sins ! To say that Christ was ever 
condemned for our sins, is a gross unscriptural notion ! That he 
suffered for sin, is admitted — that he bore the sins of mankind in 
his body on the tree, is true, and that he really suffered under 
the weight of sin and iniquity, is equally true. Now as he re- 
ally suffered for sin, so must we, by his divine power, be really 
redeemed from sin. otherwise we shall never be justified, nor be 
the happy heirs of immortal glory, with Christ in his king- 
dom !! ! " 

7th. " We are to be justified by imputed righteousness."-— 
*? David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom the 
Lord imputeth righteousness without works," Rom. iv. 6. Now 
1 d^nv that ever God imputed righteousness to an unrighteous 
man; there is not one text in the whole Bible, that conveys 
such an absurd idea. The works here spoken of were the works 
of the Law — outward ceremonial works, as clearly appears in 
this chapter : « For Abraham received the sign of circumcision 
as a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had, yet being 
uncircumcised." ver. 11. "For the promise that he should be 
the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed through 
the Law s but through the righteousness of faith." ver. 13. And 
this promise was made to Abraham, after he had attained a 



499 

real substantial' righteousness of heart and life, manifesting his 
faith by his obedience to the commands of God ! See Gen. xii. 4. 
«« For by faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a 
place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed, 
and he went out, not knowing whither he went." fleb. xi. 8. 
So we see, though Abraham was justified without the works of 
the Law, yet he was not justified without the works of faith — 
neither shall we be — the assertion of my opponent to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

Sth. " We cannot be justified by internal righteousness, be- 
cause we are justified when ungodly." This is the very doc- 
trine of Antichrist, a most pernicious error ! No ungodly man 
was ever justified in his ungodliness. God justifies the ungod- 
ly, by making them just, through the " obedience of faith," 
and in no other way. 

9th. « The Scriptural way of justification excludes boasting." 
Granted. The man who attains, through evangelical obe- 
dience, to a real substantial righteousness, obtains it by that 
divine i( Law written in the heart," which excludes boasting. 
There is no man so humble as this one — he knows, that" after 
he has done all, he is an unprofitable servant : he has only 
done that which he ought to have done ! ! !" Rom. iii. 27. Luke 
xvii. 10. 

But it may be asked, if Christ did not come in the flesh to make 
by his sacrifice an atonement for future sins, and so to create 
a capital stock of merits or righteousness, as a means of recon- 
ciling unborn generations to God, what advantages did result 
from that manifestation of the Deity commensurate to the won- 
derful display of divine power in the person of Jesus Christ ? 
I answer, 1st. God's unbounded love to man was eminently 
manifest in the coming of Christ: for (i God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son." John iii. 16. 2nd. The 
way of life and salvation was more fully opened by him, than 
it had ever been before this manifestation of God's love : tor 
«' whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." 3rd. The Gospel, which is " the power of God 
unto salvation," was preached with divine and unprecedented 
power and energy by Christ ; for " he came that they might 
have life, and that they might have it more abundantly," John 
x. 10. 4th. By the testimony he bore to the truth, both in the 
holy doctrines he taught, and in his pure and spotless life, he 
pointed out the nature of the « kingdom of heaven or the Gos- 
pel dispensation," and set a perfect example of obedience to 
the divine will, under the most trying circumstances. " To 
this end was I born, and for this cause came Unto this world, 
that I should bear witness unto the truth." John xviii. 37. 5th. 



500 

By his perfect obedience to the Jewish ritual Law, he mani- 
fested the justice of God in giving that Law, and demonstrated 
to the world, that God did not give his chosen people a rule of 
action impracticable in its nature. 6th. By his perfect obe- 
dience to that Law, he fulfilled the righteousness of that dispen- 
sation, which had ** now waxed old, and was ready to vanish 
away. 9 ' Heb. iii. 13. 7th. By his death he made « reconcilia- 
tion for iniquity," an atonement for legal sins, and " blotted 
out the hand writing of ordinances, nailing them to his cross." 
Col. ii. 14 : for him hath « God set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the 
remission of sins that are 'past, through the forbearance of God." 
Rom. iii. 25. 8th. And having, as the anointed° f God, and di- 
vinely commissioned Messiah, fulfilled and ended the Jewish 
dispensation, he opened to the world the New Covenant: « the 
Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which sets free from 
the Law of sin and death. 5 ' Rom. viii. 2. By which we may 
come to the knowledge of God for ourselves, and need not 
that any man teach us, but as Christ the anointed of God, the 
spiritual instructer, teacheth us — which is TRUTH and is no 
fte." 1 John i. 27. 9th. By Christ as manifested in that pre- 
pared body, Heb x. 5, God declared his willingness to save, 
and his free grace to pardon the repenting sinner, on condition 
ofdbedience: i( not imputing his trespasses unto him." 2 Cor. 
i. 19 1 but forgiving him freely, without any consideration paid, 
either by himself, or any other in his stead ! 

Thus, having blotted out the hand writing of ordinances — 
the outward shadowy dispensation of the Mosaic Law, he 
preached a more glorious dispensation — the "New Coven- 
ant," — "the Kingdom of God'' — "the Gospel," as manifested 
in and by himself:— -a religion of realities, the substance of all 
types and shadows, whose baptism is that of the Holy Spirit. 
Luke iii. 16. Acts i. 5. Its sacrifices a broken spirit : Psalm li. 
17, a perfect resignation of our wills to the will of God, Matt, 
vs. 10. Its justification, a being made just. Rom. ii. 13. Its 
atonement, a real reconciliation and affiliation with God, by a 
death unto sin. Col. i. 21. 22. Its righteousness, a real sub- 
stantial righteousness of heart and life. 1 John iii. 7. Its re- 
ward, peace in this world, and eternal glory in the world to 
come. AMICUS. 

NOTE. 

Having concluded my labours in this field, I will say a few 
words to my readers generally. When I first noticed " Paui" 
as-a writer in the Repository, I had not the least idea of enter- 
ing into a religious controversy. I supposed he might be some 



501 

candid, but mistaken neighbour, who only wanted information 
to produce that charitable feeling which ought to characterize 
the professors of Christianity. My aim was to shew that we 
had such reasons for our practice, as appeared to us, and would 
appear to reasonable men, a broad and sufficient ground, at 
least for religious toleration. With this view 1 issued my three 
first numbers. But I soon perceived, what indeed •* Paui" has 
since openly avowed, that 1 had an opponent whose aim was, 
not to be informed, but to vilify us ! — 1 had therefore either to 
submit to see ourselves grossly misrepresented, or to repel his 
assault by an exposure of the truth : I chose the latter. The 
effect, so far as I am informed, has more than equalled my 
most sanguine expectations. 

And now I wish to be distinctly understood, that as my la- 
bours have been purely voluntary, so if in any case I have in 
the least misrepresented the doctrines of our Society, the blame 
ought to fall exclusively on Amicus, who only is responsible 
for the sentiments expressed in his essays. 

With a sincere and ardent wish, that all the blessings of a 
true and solid piety may ever attend my readers, I now bid 
them an affectionate farewell. AMICUS. 



J^Soon after the conclusion of the foregoing discussion, the fol- 
lowing articles appeared in the Christian Repository. These 
the publishers had thought of omitting. But as they relate to the 
controversy, and are the production of the same writers, they have 
concluded to subjoin them.] 

For my part, I always like a preface. I like to know the origin 
and the object of a work, and what the author thinks of it when 
accomplished. In general, a book without a preface, is like a house 
without a porch, or without a stepping stone. 

As these Letters will probably be read by some who are strangers 
to the circumstances under which they were written, I will briefly 
state their origin and object. 

It pleased Providence to cast the writer's lot in a land of Qua- 
kerism ; — to order his residence in a town where the truths of the 
Gospel were opposed on every side. — Where the plenary inspiration 
of the Scriptures was denied; the doctrines of the Trinity, of the 
Divinity and Atonement of the Saviour called in question ; the 
ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper despised ; the Sab- 
bath profaned ; preaching, except by self-moved errorists, condemn- 
ed ; and Bible and Missionary efforts constantly ridiculed and 
opposed. Against error armed with wealth, power, numbers and 



influence, the truth could make but slow progress, and that ami<l 
many discouragements. What was worst of all, these errors were 
cloaked under the most specious terms ; infidel doctrines were con- 
cealed under Scripture phrases, and thus the community in general 
were deluded. As their preachers and writers carefully avoided 
the doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, and other leading doc- 
trines of Christianity, now and then the friends of truth would 
suspect they were Deists in disguise; but though a few whispered 
their fears, none dared speak out. 

A religious newspaper was established in this place. Not a 
Quaker took it, and the attempt seemed not likely to succeed for 
want of patronage. The opportunity was seized. Whatever else 
God has denied the writer of these Letters, he has raised him in 
some measure above the fear of man. He risked the consequences, 
questioned their Christianity, and has convicted them at the bar of 
the Christian public, on their own confession ! 

When this controversy was commenced, I calculated, as a thing 
of course, that the whole body of Friends, with all the Unitarianism 
of the natural heart, the indifferentism of professing Christians, 
and the cool calculating timid policy of many preachers, would ar se 
against me. I calculated, as a thing of course, to be assailed with 
the epithets of "bigot," " persecutor," " sectarian." ^uncharita- 
ble," &c as I have been in papers both religious and political. But 
" none of these things moved me." They neither deterred me at 
first, nor have disturbed me since. 

If to be immoveably attached to the essential doctrines of Chris- 
tianity is to be a " bigot," I am one. If to be a Christian in opposi- 
tion to all Deists and Unitarians, is to be a " sectarian" I am one. 
If to refuse to Anti-trinitarians and Socinians the name of %fc Chris- 
tian" be uncharitable, I have no such " chanty." And if to attack 
fundamental error, especially when under a specious guise, it is 
destroying souls, be " persecution," I am guilty. 

Yet, considering that two-thirds of the inhabitants of the borough 
where the paper was published were Quakers, — that Quakerism had 
given a tone of feeling to all the country round, — that the natural 
heart is every where inclined to infidelity, — and also that many 
nominal Christians, deceived by specious terms, would take part 
against me, — under these circumstances, to accuse me of ^perse- 
cution" is not a little ludicrous ! ! Did David persecute Goliah J — 
or did the twelve Apostles persecute the Jewish nation ! — or the 
little band of primitive Christians persecute the Roman empire ! 
Who ever heard of the minority persecuting the majority ! I 

Having thus noticed the origin, let me now state the precise 
object of these Letters. For though I have stated it often in the 
course of the controversy, some people have short memories, and 
unhappily misrepresent. The object then was not to display the 
author's abilities as a writer ; to fine writing he makes no preten- 
sions, and if a display of Quaker sentiments could have been other- 
wise obtained, Paul would willingly have been silent. It was not 



603 

to make proselytes to a particular denomination of Christians, for 
there is nothing in these Letters peculiar to any sect, unless 
" Christians" as a body deserve that name. Neither was it my ob- 
ject to give a systematic statement of orthodox doctrines, but only 
to notice the points on which we differed, and even those, only so 
far as should be absolutely necessary to draw the Quakers from 
their hiding place. 

My simple and sole object was, to convince the Christian commu- 
nity that, whatever individuals among the Friends might believe, as 
a Society they denied the faith, and held doctrines subversive of 
Christianity. And the way in which I proposed to accomplish this, 
was by inducing some writer to come out with a statement of their 
views on the subject of the Scriptures, the Trinity, the Divinity 
and Atonement of Christ, and Everlasting Punishments. I had no 
doubt, from their books, sermons, and conversation, that they were 
heretical on all the above subjects ; and that if the Christian public 
only knew their sentiments, they would immediately disown the 
Society. The reader will perceive, as he proceeds, that in every 
point, except the last, I have completely succeeded! the senti- 
ments AVOWED BY "AMICUS," ARE THE VERY SENTIMENTS WHICH 

i wished to fasten on the society ! Some are of opinion that 
the sentiments of " Amicus" are not the sentiments of the So- 
ciety. Why then have they not been disowned, condemned and 
opposed ? Why have they devoured his essays with such avidity, 
extolled him so highly, and in private conversation, why have their 
leaders defended him continually ? That some individuals are 
nearer the truth, and even walking in the truth, I do not doubt ; 
but as a Society, there is no reason to doubt they are as far off as 
" Amicus" himself, and a large proportion still farther ! 

If the reader will be kind enough to remember my object, as 
above stated, he will perceive, 

1. That the introductory Letters on the ordinances of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, were intended to be merely introductory, 
and to have no great importance attached to them by myself. On 
these subjects, their sentiments were so well known, that no confes- 
sion or statement was needful. I had no wish to discuss those sub- 
jects, and much less did I intend spending nine months on a topic 
of so little consequence ! Accordingly when " Amicus" wished to 
have the paper entirely to himself, I, without hesitation, yielded to 
his request, hoping that after giving these topics a transient notice, 
he would pass to the more important subjects, to which I urged him 
in short notes from week to week, offering to be silent myself for 
months, if he would proceed to give his views of the Trinity, &c. 
Not he ! Perceiving after six weeks that he felt no disposition to 
broach any important subject, but was disposed to weary the public 
patience by his attenuated discussions, I reclaimed my right, and 
again took my turn in the Repository. The reader will perceive 
the advantage which he now had on the subject of Baptism, from 
my being compelled to answer several of his Letters in one, and thirs 



504 

crowding too much matter into a single Letter. The careful reader 
will observe in my few Letters on that subject, a solid answer to 
every important argument of my adversary, though the superficial 
reader, who will not take my arguments by weight, but by the bulk, 
will probably not be satisfied with my discussion of that subject. 
In this part of the controversy, simple and unsuspecting as I was, 
I was completely overreached! And especially was I chagrined 
when he shifted his ground, and after for a long time, seeming to 
admit the fact, that the Apostles actually baptized with water, and 
thus preventing my arguments to prove that point, — he at length 
turns round and denies a fact never denied before ! It was now 
too late for me to ret" -n and adduce the arguments which I ought 
to have intror 1 -ced at first; and as I was impatient to enter upon 
higher subject md knew he only wanted an excuse to tarry where 
he was, and as ever d :A attach any particular importance to that 
part of the controversy, 1 left it rather unfinished, to arrive sooner 
at my main object. 

On the subject of the Lord's Supper, the deience is more satis- 
factory to myself, but for the above reasons, I attach no importance 
to it. 

2. The reader, by remembering my main object, will also per- 
ceive a reason for a suggestion which I am now about to make. 
Should the whole controversy be published, it will form a volume 
too large ever to be read with attention or pleasure, and, in con- 
nection with the high price, will tend to defeat the very object of 
publication. I have already heard complaints of the price, and I 
am convinced no printer can publish the whole for less than the 
price proposed. Now I am willing that the early part of the con- 
troversy be omitted, and the volume (after the Introductory num- 
ber of each party) commence with my sixteenth Letter, on justi- 
fication. (See page 179.) Or if " Amicus" choose, commence 
with his eighteenth Letter, (page 183,) in which he first broaches 
the doctrine of " Internal Light," — provided, in the latter case, 
that my Letter on " Justification" be inserted in connection 
with the last Letter of the controversy, as I have requested in 
another place. If " Amicus" really wishes the circulation of the 
volume, he will not object to this proposition. This suggestion 
proceeds from no particular fear upon the subject ; for, as I said 
before, the truth is sufficiently supported, though by no means as 
well as it might have been. But my real and sincere motive is to 
lessen the price of the volume, by throwing out the least important 
part of the discussion. 

3. The reader, by recollecting my object, will also perceive a 
reason for my not treating any subject as systematically or theolo- 
gically, as he might have wished — though I think the careful reader 
will discover far more connection and method in my lucubrations, 
than in those of my opponent. But as my chief object was to draw 
my opponent from his hiding place, and elicit a confession of his 
sentiments on subjects which he was determined, if possible, never 



505 

to discuss ; and as he, therefore, was disposed to follow me in 
every digression rather than consider the doctrines of the Trinity 
and divinity of Christ, I was prevented from discussing many 
topics which I would otherwise have discussed by the way. For 
many months, therefore, I, as it were, did nothing but wait for him 
to move forward, — answering his little objections and avoiding 
every new topic, lest he should make it an excuse to postpone the 
principal topics which he knew I wished to discuss ! 

At length, to my great joy, he broached the subject of" Internal 
Light." With what success he was combatted, (though it was not 
my primary object to refute, so much as to draw forth his senti- 
ments,) let the public judge. 

On the subject of the Trinity he seemed esolve'' not to speak. 
When every other means failed, I tried a bold, ar what he calls 
" indecent" challenge, and assured the pu v 'ic that < dare not con- 
fess his heretical sentiments. He now came forth and gave us a 
full-length portrait of n UnUariani Just, however, as I had made 
preparations to discuss the subject, I was compelled by Providence 
to lay aside my pen for several weeks, and for three of the principal 
numbers on this important subject, (to wit, the XXXIII., XXXIV., 
and XXXV,) the public are indebted to another hand. For every 
other sentence over the signature of" PAUL," I hold myself alone 
responsible. When I was able to resume my pen, I found the public 
complaining of the length of the controversy; and as I myself 
esteemed it already too tedious for our readers, and as the confes- 
sions of " Amicus" as to the main point (for this was the main 
point of all the controversy) had been most unequivocal, I con- 
cluded to write a short Number, end the discussion of that subject, 
and urge him onward towards the doctrine of Atonement. This 
will account for the rather abrupt manner in which I left that topic. 
My object, which was not so much to argue, as to discover, was by 
the statements of " Amicus" clearly obtained. 

Having thus settled the main point, that they worshipped a dif- 
ferent Deity, it was with my full approbation and consent the end 
of the controversy was announced. After having denied the Trin- 
ity, and thus rejected the foundation, it was very easy and natural 
for him to overturn the whole superstructure of the Gospel. Ac- 
cordingly in his last six numbers, he has given us the remainder of 
his system of error, which I hope the public never will forget. 

The length of the individual essays has been a just subject of 
complaint, but was no fault of mine, but of "Amicus," and a too 
indulgent editor; who, contrary to my repeated remonstrances, 
permitted him to fill such space, as rendered it absolutely neces- 
sary to double my intended quantity. 

Of my feelings towards my opponent, the reader must not judge 
from occasional asperities of style and arguments, directed not 
against him, but the system which he advocated. For, towards him, 
both as a writer and a man, I have never felt any thing but esteem 
and affection. No reader has been a greater admirer of his inge- 
61 



506 

nuity and eloquence than myself. His style is uncommonly easy 
and "popular, and his mode of argument far better calculated to 
catch the superficial reader, and to suit the common taste, as hi9 
doctrines are to suit the natural heart, than mine. I regret that it 
is not in my power to admire his learning so much as many do.— 
Of Hebrew he knows nothing, (though some of his criticisms were 
written by a pretty able hand,) of Greek he is also manifestly ig- 
norant, and what little Latin he once knew, he has almost forgotten. 
I take no pleasure in these remarks, but the public should not be 
deceived by showy appearances. 

As to the general spirit of these Letters, it must be remembered 
that it is difficult for a controversialist to be always perfectly calm, 
especially when important truths are undermined ; but I do assure 
the public, that, however rough my manner, I have felt nothing but 
love. True, if you take the statement of my motives and conduct 
from my antagonist, and construe my silence as a proof of guilt, I 
shall be almost every week convicted of " slander," " malice," 
" avarice," and " falsehood !" You will believe me a " Saul," a 
"Balaam," a "Judas," a " hireling," and a " hypocrite !" You 
will convict me continually of " anger," " detraction," and " mis*- 
representation ;" not to mention many other more trifling charges, 
such as " self-conceit," and " ignorance !!!" Now under all these 
I have felt an honest independence, and have scorned to answer 
them ; but as some have evidently misconstrued my silence, I have 
one request to make, and that is, that you would examine J or your* 
selves. Take a pen in your hand, and as you read, erase every 
word and sentence which imputes bad motives to my opponent, — 
which blackens his moral character or that of his Society, — -which 
charges him with hypocrisy, with avarice or with any thing immoral 
or unamiable. In short, erase every sentence which reflects on any 
thing but their Doctrines, and I have little fear of many blots 
upon your book ! I have, and it is the worst crime with which I 
have charged them, I have charged them with denying the plenary 
inspiration of the Bible, — the doctrine of the Trinity — the Divinity 
and Atonement of Christ, &c. ; and if " the greater the truth, the 
greater the libel," then am I guilty of a libel on the Quakers, for 
" Amicus" has fully avowed the truth of every charge !!! 
But if otherwise, if the truth is no libel, I am completely acquitted 
from the so often repeated charge of " slander." 

If the whole controversy be published, I have one request to make 
in regard to my third Letter. Through some carelessness of mine, 
the first half was printed not from the copy I had prepared, but 
from some rough preparatory notes. It is at present in a very 
awkward and almost unintelligible state. If| however, the editor 
will only print the quotations from Scripture in full, I will ask no 
other alteration; and as an indemnity for his trouble, he may omit 
the " Apology" in the succeeding .Number of the Repository, other- 
wise I wish the Apology inserted. The number will still be very 
awkward and imperfect, but it is not of much consequence. I sup- 



507 

pose and hope, that besides the regular essays, all our little weekly 
notes will be given to the public. 

In conclusion, I commend the work to God, and hope for his 
blessing. I rejoice that ever the controversy was commenced, as 
it has opened the eyes of the community to the soul-destroying er- 
rors of a most powerful and plausible society, and has excited a 
spirit of inquiry which I trust will not soon be suppressed. 

The Motto which I wish affixed to the work, is Luke xi. 35. 

" TAKE HEED THAT THE LIGHT WHICH IS IN THEE BE NOT DARK- 
NESS." PAUL. 
Friday, January 24, 1823. 



Amicus* reply to " PauVs" intended preface. 

" Paul" having again appeared in the Repository, intending his 
production as a preface to the " Letters of Paul and Amicus," and 
as I shall object to any prologue, alteration, transposition, abrevia- 
tion or appendix, it will be proper to state my objections and make 
a few remarks in answer to his statements. 

He tells us, "he always likes a. preface, and to know what an 
author thinks of his own work when it is accomplished " He com- 
pares a preface,to " a porch," and supposes that a book without one, 
is " like a house without a stepping stone." If our readers will con- 
sult his first Letter, I presume they will agree with me, that he has 
already made " a porch," that is quite as good as the house he 
added to it, and furnishes a " stepping stone" every way worthy 
of the dark smoky hovel into which it leads. It appears, however, 
by his anxiety to tear down a large part of his own house, that it is 
not so much a new porch that he desires, as a back door by which to 
escape the just judgment of every rational, impartial reader of our 
respective Letters. This singular attempt will infallibly inform the 
discerning part of the public, " what the author thinks of his own 
work now it is accomplished." 

He then informs us, " that it pleased Providence to cast his lot in 
a land of Quakerism, a town where the truths of the Gospel were 
opposed on every side." All religious societies but the Calvinists 
are opposed to the truth ! ! ! Whether the truths of the Gospel, as 
preached by Christ and his Apostles, have been opposed on every 
side, our readers by this time may determine. That they have 
been opposed on one side, is very evident, if the plainest language 
of Scripture can be evidence in the case. We have seen " the 
works of the Law," — " the meats and drinks and divers washings" 
of the Mosaic dispensation, which Christ took out of the way, nail- 
ing it to his cross," again introduced as essential parts of" the New 
Covenant! ! !" We have seen Christ, " the true Light that lighteth 
every man that cometh into the world," denominated an " impos- 
tor"—" an ignis fatuus" — " a Jack-o-lantern ! ! !"— We have heard 



5QS 

the Spirit of God, called " a misguiding spirit! ! i" — We have wit 
uessed, a weak and absurd attempt, to prove that the infinite Jeho- 
vah was a compound being, make up of finite parts ! i ! — We have 
been told that the CREATOR of the world was mortal ; that the 
AUTHOR OF LIFE was killed by his own workmanship ! ! !— We 
have seen the merciful God represented as a cruel unmerciful despot? 
creating myriads of immortal beings on purpose to plunge them in- 
to torment, immeasurable and interminable !!! — -We have been as- 
sured, that a God of purity justifies the wicked man in his wicked- 
ness ; that Christ's righteousness is a kind of cloak to cover the 
filthiness of the unrepenting hypocrite ; that the author of salvation 
holds communion with iniquity, and stands in concord with 
Belial!!! — And finally, we are informed, that all these palpable 
absurdities, are true Gospel doctrines, and that in opposing them we 
oppose " the truths of the Gospel." 

Now I think it needless further to demonstrate, that these doc- 
trines are not the glad tidings, or Gospel of Christ ; but the ap- 
palling and horribly evil tidings that came by an apostacy from 
Christ, through theological schools, and a corrupt mercenary priest- 
hood ! ! ! 

But we are told, that in spreading his budget of disgusting errors, 
he had " to contend with wealth, power, numbers, and influence 5 
and that he could make but slow progress." He might have added, 
that he had to contend against revelation, reason, and common sense, 
amidst an intelligent well informed inquiring population ; circum- 
stances, eminently calculated to retard the progress of error, and 
to defeat the machinations of priestcraft ! — But he "risked the con- 
sequences ;" and the consequences that naturally and unavoidably 
follow the course he has pursued, have resulted ; instead of convinc- 
ing the unbeliever, or confirming the wavering in the doctrines of 
the persecuting saint ATHANASIUS, he has driven hundreds from 
the blood-stained standard, and been ameans of unshackling many ? 
even of his own denomination, from the errors of an unscripturai, 
and irrational theology. 

" Whatever," says my opponent, " God has denied him, He has 
raised him in some measure above the fear of man." Now if to make 
the most invidious reflections on a whole community — if to publish 
the most palpable untruths — if to contradict himself over and over 
again, be any evidence of emancipation from " the fear of man," then 
we must grant, that "Paul" has been, in great measure, relieved 
from this kind of fear; but it must also be granted, as a necessary 
consequence, that he has likewise been raised above the fear of his 
Creator!!! — and the "cool calculating and Christian policy " of 
many excellent " preachers" of different religious denominations, 
have passed a sentence on his productions, which though it may not 
" disturb" my opponent, is calculated to disturb the repose of any 
one, whose conscience retains a truly religious tenderness, or re- 
gard for an unblemished reputation ! 

" Paul" in his preface, informs his readers, that " two-thirds of 



509 

the inhabitants of the Borough, where the paper was published, 
were Quakers, and that Quakerism had given a tone of feeling to 
all the country round." This statement gives a fair specimen of 
this author's love of veracity, as exhibited in more than fifty in- 
stances in his Letters. I have frequently been astonished, in the 
course of this discussion, at the utter disregard of truth, so often 
manifested, by one whose profession as a minister of the Gospel, 
should have bound him to set an example of great purity in this re- 
spect. Now the inhabitants of this Borough may be estimated, in 
round numbers, at six thousand souls ; the members of our Society, 
at seven hundred and fifty, at most. To these may be added, about 
two hundred and fifty, who profess our principles, and who are not 
in strict membership ; the sum total will be, 1 suppose at most, one 
thousand. If we go into the country four miles round, the propor- 
tion of our members to the whole population will be much less ; as 
very few of them live out of the Borough. My opponent tells us, 
two-thirds are Quakers ; but the fact is, that one-sixth at most, in- 
cluding professors, are Quakers. In order to swell his magnanimity 
in adventuring to attack so formiable a body, he represents us as 
four times as numerous as we really are ! Like the evil spies that 
were sent to examine the land, he sees giants in his way ; and like 
them, I trust in Providence, he and his fellow craftsmen shall never 
subdue it ! 

How far the Quakers have given a tone of feeling to all the coun- 
try round, I am not able to say. I have no doubt their principles 
and practice have opened the eyes of many, to see the unscriptural 
nature, the selfish practices, and dangerous tendency of a hireling 
ministry ; and I have some substantial ground to believe, that the 
present controversy has happily extended this kind of influence. 

My opponent makes a curious flourish on his own calculations. 
" I calculated," says he, " to be assailed with the epithets of bigot, 
persecutor, sectarian, uncharitable." — No doubt he had internal 
data for his conclusions on this subject ! — but he says " to accuse me 
of persecution is not a little ludicrous ; did David persecute Goliah ?" 
Now for what others may have done, I am not accountable. As for 
Amicus, I am sure he never accused " Paul" of persecution. I was 
not so silly as to accuse him of doing that which he had no power 
to do!!! 

In his statement of the object of his attack on the Society, " Paul" 
has made a miserable attempt to impose upon his readers. He 
wishes the public to believe he had no proselyting scheme in view. 
But the veil he would draw over the deformity of his scheme, is too 
short to cover it. While he would hide one end of it, by a cunning 
attempt to persuade us, that "truth was his object," [see his first 
Letter] he exposes the other, by an acknowledgment, that he " had 
no intention of giving a systematic statement of orthodox doc- 
trines.' J!" Now if "truth was his object," and orthodox doctrines 
were the doctrines of truth, why did he not intend to give us a sys- 
tematic statement of them ? Truth is altogether lovely : and truth 



510 

can never be better promoted, than by exposing her to view in all 
her native loveliness ! As to the allegation, that he only wished " to 
draw the Quakers from their hiding place," it involves him at once 
in the guilt of ignorance or fraud. The Quakers have published 
their sentimeuts to the world, with unparalleled industry. — In the 
first sixty years of their existence as a body, they printed and dis- 
seminated nearly four thousand different publications, on religious 
subjects. William Penn's Works, which contain all the senti- 
ments of Amicus as published in his Letters, have gone through at 
least four editions, and are widely diffused. The Quakers, both in 
doctrine and practice, have stood openly before the public for more 
than one hundred and fifty years ! Now if he supposed the Quakers 
a hidden people, he was grossly ignorant of their real character, as 
thousands of our fellow Christians in this country can testify. If he 
knew they were not a hidden people, he is guilty of a low fraud. 
"Let him take which horn of the dilemma he pleases. 

He tells us very triumphantly, and prints the sentence in capitals, 
that " the sentiments avowed by Amicus are the very sentiments 
which he wished to fasten on the Society." — He thinks, or pretends 
to think, that these sentiments are calculated to injure us in the 
view of the public. But in this he is egregiously mistaken. The 
sentiments of Friends, on many important points, are now rapidly 
spreading in the world, and particularly in this country; but in an 
especial manner, where the public have the best opportunities of 
information. Whilst the doctrine of Tritheism, or Trinitarianism, 
with all its shocking and absurd appendages, are notoriously on the 
wane ! Colleges and Universities, the seats of learning, and nurse- 
ries of science, have abandoned it, and in many places, whole con- 
gregations renouncing it as impious, have openly avowed their 
change of opinion. And as light and knowledge are extended, as 
superstition and priestcraft, which for ages, have swayed their ebon 
sceptre over the intellectual faculties of man, yield to the empire of 
reason, and the light of divine revelation, the doctrines of Calvin- 
ism, like owls, who cannot bear the light, will retire to their native 
shades, and only be heard or seen by the benighted traveller. 

I will now recur to that part of his intended preface, in which he 
speaks of the soi-disant ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per ; in which his prevarication and double dealing are conspicu- 
ously evident. It is a remarkable fact, which our readers will per- 
ceive by a recurrence to his Letters, that "Paul" always entered 
on the different subjects of discussion, with great self-confidence, 
and an air of triumph. As the discussion progressed, he evidently 
grew restless and uneasy, gave many tokens of chagrin and disap- 
pointment, and at last would openly beg his opponent for a cessa- 
tion of arms. Thus the subject of Missions was but partially open- 
ed by Amicus, till he challenged him to the field on the subjects of 
" Baptism," and the " Supper." On these subjects, " Paul" soon 
involved himself in the most palpable contradictions, and ludicrous 
absurdities, and very pathetically begged me to leave them [see 



511 

page 152.] — After this we entered on the subject of " Internal 
Light," of which he became very tired, and tried various means to 
induce me to leave this interesting topic unfinished ; at length, af- 
ter exposing the unscriptural and selfish nature of a mercenary 
priesthood, I gratified him by taking up the doctrines of the Athan- 
asian creed. This he considered an impregnable fortress ; to use 
the terms of one of his particular friends: "a high battlement/' 
But to the evident grief of my antagonist, he found it one of his 
most vulnerable positions ! ! ! — There is no point of scholastic di- 
vinity, so fraught with contradictions and palpable absurdities, as 
this. It contradicts the plainest and most numerous Scripture pas- 
sages of any other. It puts reason, revelation, and common sense, 
at defiance, and leaves us to struggle, without a ray of light, in the 
confused labyrinths of mysticism, a hopeless, helpless prey to spirit- 
ual wolves who spare not the flock !! ! — From this we passed to 
Justification by Imputative righteousness; — on this point he would 
not answer my arguments — indeed he could not; but happily for 
him, no doubt at his own request, — his friend the Editor interposed, 
and saved him, and his shattered system, from an exposure, which I 
was preparing for the public, and which as defendant I was entitled 
to make, and would have made if the balance of privilege had been 
equally poised. 

These ordinances (Baptism and the Supper,) he told us (see page 
16,) were the "seals of God's Covenant, and badges of Christiani- 
ty" — " of high moment and eternal consequence?' In his intended 
preface, he says, he " never did attach any particular importance to 
that part of the controversy." I have not time to notice all his 
contradictions on these subjests, I will therefore refer my readers 
to his Letters, for further proofs of " Paul's" inconsistency ! But, 
why should he wish to prevent the republication of this part of the 
controversy? — forsooth to make the book smaller, as "Paul-* 
would make us believe ! The real reason, however, he did not un- 
fold ! It is very well known, that the legal nature of these ordinan^ 
ces, and their inconsistency with the Christian dispensation, were 
so fully proved, that a number of persons felt relieved from their 
former scruples on these points, and " Paul" has lost many little 
odd jobs of sprinkling infant faces with water, in order to seal them 
with grace, and clothe them with the badges of Christianity !! ! 

To induce me to leave out this part of the controversy, he says : 
" If Amicus really wishes the circulation of the volume, he will 
not object to this proposition." — Now Amicus does not wish to cir- 
culate a mutilated copy of the controversy ! Whether the friends 
of Amicus, or those of" Paul," are most anxious to circulate the 
work, will be amply tested by the subscription papers. On this 
ground I am perfectly willing to rest that point! 

I can however unite with "Paul" in the hope that the public 
will never forget the last six numbers of Amicus. I really have 
some doubts, whether " we worship the same God !" Amicus has de- 
nied the " foundation" of Trinitarianism — the division of the Deity 



512 

into parts — one part standing on the earth and calling to another 
part up in the clouds! — The murder of the CREATOR by a lawless 
company of Jews I &c. &c. — The God we worship is one pure 
Eternal Spirit! infinitely merciful, and of great compassion, par- 
doning iniquity, transgression, and sin ; omnipotent, omnipresent, 
indivisible, and infinite in wisdom and goodness. These characters 
do not apply to the object of Trinitarian worship — which of the 
two is the God delineated in the Holy Scriptures, I am perfectly 
willing to leave the public to decide ! 

Of my knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, on 
which " Paul" has so learnedly descanted, I have not much to 
boast — if I have had enough to meet my profound antagonist with 
his borrowed lore, the public, I trust, will hold me excused. Those 
who have more learning than either, of us, will discover one fact : 
that my opponent is a mere plagiarist! he has in a great variety of 
instances borrowed not only the sentiments, but the very language 
in which they are clothed! "Paul" may consider this fact as a 
proof of his great erudition ; a proof which Amicus cannot much 
admire !!! one thing is very certain : " Paul" is wholly ignorant of 
Amicus. He has made many attempts to designate him; his last 
proves him totally in the dark. 

As to my statements of " the motives and conduct of my antago- 
nist," I am perfectly willing their truth should be tried by his own 
publications. It is through this medium only that I know him. Let 
my readers "take a pen, and as they read erase" every incorrect 
statement I have made, and I believe their book will be without a 
blot! or let them prove them in any degree unsound, and I will 
make a public recantation. 

Before I close this essay, I will just observe, that many of the 
palpable falsehoods from time to time uttered by my opponent, I had 
not room nor leisure to notice. In fact, they were so numerous, 
that to refute them would in some instances have occupied all the 
space allotted me for the principal subject of discussion. But an 
interesting work has just issued from the press, intitled: "Truth 
Advocated ; in Letters addressed to the Presbyterians, by Vindex," 
which has amply supplied my deficiencies in this respect. To this 
book I would particularly recommend the readers of this contro- 
versy. If the labours of Amicus has had no other good effect than 
to induce so able a writer as " Vindex" to take up his pen, I shall 
not have laboured in vain. 

2 «o. 14. 1823. AMICUS, 



FINIS, 



r9 



>L~3PS? 


33 


;> 


> 


v^^ 


3f5 


:>^ 


5£3K 


35" 


3^ 


■ >~~> •>' >> 


~7> 



3 d ^ 



^o> 



► 2>3 

33 ""? 
3 3" 

>d : 
3d 

3D 

'3D 

333 

► 3D 

> 3 3 

3XD 
3x>D 

^>3 

3x>3 



3 »D 



33l3> 



ft 


3 3 J 

> > 

3 :> _^; 
'3 > - 

y ■ i 

3 _J 
> 


> 3D 2> 

> 3>^> 

>3>or> 
> . > ) z> 

> >3> ^ 

*> > 3 "^> 

» >:> 2> 


3 

3 


g 


-^ 


3 

> 


3> 





3 > ^*' D 


) _j»- 


.3 > » 5 


) :* 


3 3 _>? < 


> _> 


3>dS^ 


^ ) 
^5 > 


J 


)) ^»- 




» 3*> 




■^^ 


35 Qi 


) 


^S 


^ ^ 


\\ 


3^5 


W 3 




■ ^5 


33 3 


Ko" 


)^i 


3£> Q 


; 


f"* 


3D ^ 


fj } 




30-' ^ 






v^ ^ 


t ) 


)"1 


>2> ' :- 


J 


5 


>3 . -c 

Pi 




3 

1 ) -' 


3 > S3 


> ';; 


iT > 3 


>3 


< ^> D> 


>D 


V 5 ^ 


»i 


^ 3> ^ 


^3; 


3 5 ^> 


933 


^/ 3\ 'T> 


2 ^ 


> 5 ^ 


< > ^- 


£ -<J>^ 


>X> 


c i> ^> 


X53 


v s > 


3^3: 


3 ^? 


3 ^>3 


"^ ) "3 


^ i> > 


^> 2>y 




i^ 


^^ )D 


^ ^ 


"^ 3 ^ 


^ ^^ 


> ^^ 33 


3 3^ 


-**£ >.} 


? ^3 


^5 3 3 


> 3j 


— -^^ ^ ^« 3^ 









J? 3^>^» 


3J> 


3 


> 


T> 


> 


^, 


E^^Sb 


D> 


3 


> J 


^L3 


,!>> 


3> 


> 3» 


> 


' > ; 


3> 


3^> 


> 


^1> 


> 3")^> 


3 


> 


> 


3 


ft"* ) >'; 


3> 


> 3>>: 


3 


> 


- >> 


3> 


"■; ' - j 


> » 


> ^> ' 


> 


> 


~> 


3 


5 >: 


^^ 


> >». 


3 


;> 


> 


^3 


">> ■ 


^1> 


> ^o s 


3i 


» . 


3 


"3. 


>' 


^ 


Z> ) > 


:> 


. » 


7> 


3 


>> > 


^3> 


:>>> : 


> 


» 


3 


i> 


3> 


3>> 


3 3 


> 


6 


> 


3 


>3 7 


^3>> 


> >^ 


> 

> 


" > 


> 


3 


3' •' 




> -> 2 


► 


) .> 


,3 3> 

' 3 


> s 


► > > " 


>.JE» 


> > z> 




j 


J 3 


:>.> 


» J> 


31> 


>3 > ^> 


2) 


- 


>3 


■> • 


d y> 


o> 


> > > 


> 


■ s> 


> 3 


> > 


3 » 


o 









Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. • 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



12* > >> 



^33 

) jo; 

1 )3 



5 ■» ^ V 


— ^ 


J 3? ^ ? 


«^ 


> 3) 3 £ 


-^J 


o 3> > > 


J* 


) 0> 3 ? 


; __j) 


> ) 3 > 3 P 


y& 


>3 - 3> 3 ^ 


3> 


3 33) 3 > 


3> 


>3 3^> 3-> 


3£ 


o T>) > 


D 


) 3 ) ) 3> s> 


x> 


) 3 P 39 


3 



3 r 
3> 



? ^ _3 )j> ■» ) > Dt> 

' 1 ^> 3D "3>" 3 

' ' 3 33 3 >~ 
»>»3 )3 3- ,'« 
> ) 3 33 3 LU 

> 33> > i 

» 3 >>2>.3> vU 

333 ^ 
3^> 

^X> 3 _- 
3 >> 

3X> 

^2X> > -^ 

> 3> 3> * 
^ 3> » 
' .3 33 

3 DO 3 

^ 32» 

' ^> 33 3^ 
3 33) >^ 
3 >^> > . 
3 3 3 3> > 3 ' 
' 3 3> >3 g 

^-3 5 >3 3 

3 3> >3. <. 

3 3> >.3 <3 

3 ^> >3 3-: 

i>3 ^ '^ ^ 



3J> 

SO ' y 

3> 



> » 


^^^L 


> 3> 


>; ^"^ 


> 33 


; —-^f 


) X» 


> ?) ^^ 


) 5> 

3 3[> 


% 


> 3> 


■ i2^ 


3 3> 


; Jj^ ' 


^> 3> 


-\Ij^- 



»>^ 



> >3 


. ■ jt 


> 33 


3 


> 32> 


) 


^> 


► 33 


.3> 


3 3 


33 


^3 : 


33 


► 33 


33 




^ 


• 33 


X> 


> 33 


3> 


> 3>3 i 


^ 


V^ 


3> 


^ >>^£f 



>...>?3- ^33^ 

& O 3>3 >3 3 3^ 

3>i>3) £g> 33i2P" 



^> 3< >3 3 3^^ 

aa > 03 »3> »)3 

;^^> ^> >3 3 >r> 33^3^- 
3>3->, 3>o33 i33 :>3;>3 
3)^3> 3 3^>-.3> 3>0> 
^§5 3 33 >3 3>>^ , 
3>2> 3 3 3 > >3^-> p 

J) '3> 3 ;3 i) )) >j> » -> > 

y> \3> 33 /cf /»> 5 > 

t);3> :> 3 ^ ? ^^3> , > 

^?.-^-, -^ - 

3> y ^ l^^^^ >3 I 2 

^ 5 >^ >^ 33 T* 

» >3 >^ 



» 3> 
>)3> 
D 3> 



> 3 

D 3 



./g3>3X> >i3 

^J>333 3^ 

. 3>133_3 ) > 

3>33L 



^>3>3I1 



> > >^> 33 
30> 30 

> >~3> 33 
> s> .» 32>* 

3 5^ 
» 53^ 



